Preamble

The House met at half-past

Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

DEE AND CLWYD RIVER AUTHORITY BILL

Lords amendments considered and agreed to.

GREATER LODDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL

Ordered,

That in the case of the Greater London Council (Money) Bill Standing Order 208 (Notice of Consideration of Lords Amendments) be suspended and that the Lords Amendments be now considered.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Lords amendments accordingly considered, and agreed to.

TRENT RIVER AUTHORITY BILL

Ordered,

That in the case of the Trent River Authority Bill Standing Order 208 (Notice of Consideration of Lords Amendments) be suspended and that the Lords Amendments be now considered. —[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Lords amendments accordingly considered, and agreed to.

HARWICH HARBOUR BILL [Lords]

Ordered,

That the Promoters of the Harwich Harbour Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend further Proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further Proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and

That all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid.

Ordered,

That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration, signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session.

Ordered,

That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office that a declaration as mentioned above has been deposited has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and shall be committed to the Chairman of Ways and Means, who shall make only such Amendments thereto as have been made by the Committee in the present Session, and shall report the Bill as amended to the House forthwith, and the Bill, so amended, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table.

Ordered,

That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any Proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session.

Ordered,

That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

To he communicated to the Lords.

NORTH WALES HYDRO ELECTRIC POWER BILL

Ordered,

That so much of the Lords Message [23rd July] as relates to the North Wales Hydro Electric Power Bill be now considered.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Considered accordingly.

Ordered,

That the Promoters of the North Wales Hydro Electric Power Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with that Bill in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid.

Ordered,

That on the third day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House.

Ordered,

That there shall be deposited with a Bill a Declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill. stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session.

Ordered,

That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be deemed to have been read the first, second and third time and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read.

Ordered,

That no further fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session.

That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

EXPERIMENTS ON LIVING ANIMALS

Address for Return,

of Experiments performed under the Act 39 and 40 Vict. c. 77, during 1972.—[Mr. Lane.]

OFFENCES RELATING TO MOTOR VEHICLES

Address for Return,

showing the number of offences relating to motor vehicles in England and Wales, the number of persons prosecuted for such offences, statistics of court proceedings and the number of alleged offences in respect of which written warnings were issued by the police, together with the number of persons concerned, during the year ended the 31st day of December 1972. —[Mr. Lane.]

LODDON BRIDGE COLLAPSE

Address for Return,

of the Report of Her Majesty's Factory Inspectorate on the Collapse of Falsework for the Viaduct over the River Loddon on 24th October 1972. [Mr. Malcolm Macmillan.]

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

Class Size

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proportion of primary classes contained more than 40 pupils in January 1970 and in January 1973.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): In January 1970, in England and Wales, it was 6–6 per cent. The figure for January 1973 is not yet available, but in January 1972 it was 2·5 pet cent.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Will my hon Friend congratulate my right hon. Friend on the steady improvement throughout her record term of office? Will he ask her, when planning future teacher-training programmes, always to bear in mind that unfortunately a great deal of remedial teaching is still required? Will he urge his right hon. Friend to do all she can to encourage the courses required for specialisation in this most worthwhile branch of the profession?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I shall certainly convey the good wishes of my hon. Friend to my right hon. Friend. I assure my hon. Friend that I regard remedial teaching as extremely important, but we hope that as it gets under way the nursery school programme will reduce the need for this type of education by bringing children into the educational system earlier.

Mr. Marks: When the Under-Secretary conveys his congratulations, will he point out to the Secretary of State that all the teachers concerned were in college when his party took office? Does he not accept that within the figure he quoted of 2·5 per cent. there are many variations? Is he aware that in Lancashire the proportion is twice as great and that in a number of schools in my constituency more than half the classes contain more than 30 children? Will the hon. Gentleman accept emergency building plans, particularly from Lancashire, because housing authorities are giving permission for the building of hundreds of houses


which could be built within a year, while school building is at least two years behind?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I accept that regional variations exist. I quoted an overall figure. I assure the hon. Member that the needs of Lancashire will always be given appropriate consideration. However, to put the situation into perspective, the hon. Gentleman should take account of the fact that the incidence of team teaching in primary schools is increasing, which means that many of the apparently large classes are, in fact, groups of children under the guidance or control of more than one teacher.

Manningtree County Secondary School

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science why she refused the Essex Local Education Authority's submission for the remodelling of the Manningtree County Secondary School to 450 places for inclusion in the 1975–76 or 1976–77 secondary replacement and improvement scheme.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The Manningtree project was carefully examined, but the resources available had to be allocated to cases considered to be more urgent. It is open to the local education authority to resubmit the project for subsequent stages of the secondary improvement programme.

Mr. Ridsdale: Is my hon. Friend aware that that is a most disappointing reply, particularly as in this expanding area the school wishes to be remodelled and it is necessary to find more buildings in which to accommodate all the children in the area?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am aware that my hon. Friend would have found that reply disappointing. I am sorry not to be more forthcoming. The Department and my right hon. Friend are aware of the strong feelings among parents in Manningtrec and that the lack of suitable buildings may delay the intended reorganisation of the school as a comprehensive school for the 11-to-16 age group. As my hon. Friend knows, however, the low rate of growth of the secondary school population in the area makes it difficult to justify additions to the existing Manningtree buildings on the basis of basic needs.

Maintained Schools (Status)

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the average time taken by her Department to reply to applications for changes of status of maintained schools under Section 13 of the Education Act 1944 in the year ending 1st July 1973 and what was the equivalent time taken in the years ending 1st July 1971 and 1st July 1972.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): To answer this Question would involve a special analysis of some 3,000 proposals. The information cannot therefore be provided without disproportionate cost.

Mr. Mitchell: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is increasing concern among local authorities about the length of time which her Department takes to deal with these applications and that the delay is growing? Because of escalating building costs, every month of delay costs local authorities large sums. Will she do everything possible to speed up her Department's replies to these applications?

Mrs. Thatcher: Section 13 notices and the building programmes are quite separate and decisions on one are given without prejudice to the other, and that is always stated. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that within the past five months we have been gaining on the waiting list.

Mr. Haftersley: Would it not help local authorities by speeding matters if the hon. Lady laid down criteria for what she would regard as acceptable reorganisation proposals? Why does she not do that?

Mrs. Thatcher: Because many of them are different and each has to be judged on its merit. One of the other factors in delay may be that a local authority might ask us to hold things up to see whether it can make some of the required changes.

Adult Education

Mr. Boyden: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress she has made in her consideration of whether to appoint a development council for adult education.

Mr. Sydney Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when she now proposes to have discussions with the local authority associations, the appropriate teachers' associations and other interested bodies, on the Russell Report on Adult Education.

Mr. Bidwell: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she has yet arranged discussions with interested persons about the Russell Report on Adult Education.

Mr. Barnes: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress she has made in her discussions with interested parties on the recommendations of the Russell Report on Adult Education.

Mrs. Thatcher: I have not yet completed my consideration of this comprehensive and detailed report, one of whose proposals is for a development council for adult education. As soon as I have done so I shall arrange discussions with the local authority associations, the relevant teachers' associations and representatives of the other main interests in adult education about the report's recommendations. Meanwhile, I am not ready to comment on particular recommendations of the report.

Mr. Boyden: Does not the Secretary of State realise that those who are interested in adult education are becoming irritated about the delay? The right hon. Lady has had the report since January. How much longer does she require before her Department comes to a view on the matter?

Mrs. Thatcher: I think the hon. Gentleman forgets that the report took four years to compile by people specially sitting to consider the subject. I hope it will not be long before it goes out to consultation. In the meantime, the number of people availing themselves of the splendid adult education service is increasing. It has increased by three-quarters of a million since the Russell Committee started its work.

Mr. Bidwell: Would the Minister recognise that there is great feeling about this matter in many organisations traditionally concerned with adult education?
Would she think seriously about giving a date for stimulating discussion and getting the funds necessary to implement the report?

Mrs. Thatcher: I share the lion. Gentleman's sympathy about the subject and I wish to do more to help adult education. It is a highly complex report. We need more time to analyse it and to consult interested parties, but I hope that it will not be much longer.

Mr. Chapman: When my right hon. Friend discusses the report with interested parties, would she agree that crucial to the expansion of places for adult education must be the use of existing facilities in primary and secondary schools, colleges of further education and universities?

Mrs. Thatcher: I will certainly bear that in mind. It was a subject to which the report gave a good deal of attention. We are all anxious that capital and equipment facilities should be used to the maximum.

Mr. Barnes: With the demand for adult education growing as the Secretary of State has said, would she not agree that it is important that the development council, if there is to be one, should have sufficient funds of its own, as the Schools Council has, to carry out its own research into varying needs and new curricula?

Mrs. Thatcher: The development council was one of the proposals put forward by the Russell Committee, and I would rather not comment on it at this stage.

Mr. John E. B. Hill: I realise the vital importance of full consultation, but can my right hon. Friend say to what extent the recommendations of the Russell Committee are likely to be covered by existing education commitments rather than by any extension of them?

Mrs. Thatcher: Extra money has been allocated since the Russell Committee started to sit, otherwise we could not possibly have had the growth of an extra three-quarters of a million people in the system. There is a certain amount of growth built in as we do our ordinary projection on the existing rate of expansion of numbers in adult education.

Mr. Moyle: Is the right hon. Lady aware that we on this side of the House accept the Russell Report in principle? Can she say the same? If she cannot find it in her heart to do so, will she at least say that she considers adult education to be important?

Mrs. Thatcher: I have already said that I am sympathetic to the ideas contained in the report.

Mr. Grylls: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that about 50 per cent. of industrial workers—those doing shift work—are effectively excluded from adult education? Can she give a date when statutory release for education courses will be the right of every citizen?

Mrs. Thatcher: I am sorry, but I cannot satisfy the last half of that supplementary question. It is a broad question on its own. Some authorities, of which mine is one, have adult education centres during the day. For example, I know of one that uses a previous secondary school, which has been replaced, for daytime adult education purposes.

Pupil-Teacher Ratio

Mr. Montgomery: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT details of the pupil-teacher ratio in primary and secondary schools in each of the past five years.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate the details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Montgomery: Can my hon. Friend confirm that the figures show an improving trend, particularly in the primary sector? If so, does not this show up the hypocrisy of the Labour Party, which launched a recent attack on the Government on this issue?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am glad to say that my hon. Friend is right and that the figures show a steady improvement. The position concerning primary class sizes is improving faster than that concerning secondary class sizes. As the figures in the report show, the ratios for 1969–70 are much higher than those for 1971–72. The earlier figures are based on teaching staff and later ones are based on qualified

teachers only, so that the figures understate the true improvement.

Mr. Carter: Is the Minister aware that, as a result of his right hon. Friend's refusal to implement the Birmingham Local Education Authority's proposals for the reorganisation of secondary education in the city, many schools will have a full complement of staff this coming year, though an insufficient number of pupils, because parents refuse to allow their children to travel from one side of the city to the other to attend an appropriate school? Can he tell the House on what criteria the education system in Birmingham has been so disrupted?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Any disruption of the Birmingham education system is not due to my right hon. Friend's decisions. She has based her decisions on educational considerations, local needs and wishes and, above all, on the needs of the children concerned.

Mr. Sydney Chapman: Is my hon. Friend aware that, even if my right hon. Friend had accepted the radical proposals for secondary reorganisation in Birmingham, it was pointed out to the Birmingham education authority on repeated occasions that it would not be practicable to implement those proposals this September? Therefore, any blame to be attached must fall squarely on the shoulders of the chairman of the local' education authority.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: That is an interesting point, but it does not arise directly from the Question.

Mr. Hattersley: Since the Secretary of State took her Birmingham decision with such objectivity, why did she think it right to brief Conservative Members of Parliament about her decision before she told either the Catholic Church or the local education authority?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: My right hon. Friend took the proper steps to inform all interested parties.

Mr. Hattersley: Since the right hon. Lady claims such objectivity in these matters, why did she think it right to brief Conservative Members of Parliament before she notified either the Catholic Church or the LEA of her decision?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I did not realise that the hon. Gentleman's hearing was


defective. I made it clear that my right hon. Friend took entirely proper steps to inform all interested parties.

Following are the details:

Maintained Schools



January
Primary
Secondary
All


1969
27·7
17·9
22·9


1970
27·4
17·8
22·7


1971
26·9
17·9
22·6


1972
26·1
17·6
22·0


1973 (provisional)
25·5
17·2
21·4

Under-Fives

Mr. Robert Cooke: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many children under five years of age are attending nursery schools or primary schools at the latest convenient date; and how this figure compares with those for the previous five years on the same date.

Mrs. Thatcher: The provisional figure for January 1973, for maintained schools in England and Wales, is 394 000. This compares with 351,000 in 1972, 318,000 in 1971, 291,000 in 1970, 275,000 in 1969 and 257,000 in 1968.

Mr. Cooke: I am sure that the House will wish to congratulate my right hon. Friend on this great progress. Perhaps she will tell the House whether it will be maintained. Does she agree that a really good start at that end of the education process is worth almost more than anything else that we can give to the children? Will she ensure that, in the work of the nursery classes and so on, parents are brought into the picture wherever possible so that education complements the home influences?

Mrs. Thatcher: I am happy to say that I agree with my hon. Friend on most of those points. It was for that reason that we put so much stress on the primary school programme first. We are having for the first time a 10-year nursery programme on the education budget and we shall put stress on parent-teacher relationships in the way my hon. Friend wishes.

Miss Lestor: I welcome any extension in nursery education, but will the right hon. Lady make two matters clear? First, on her figures, will she explain how much of the increase is due to the fact that many places that were full-time and taking one child are now part-

time and taking two children? Secondly, will she explain why she continues to include in figures for nursery education what is implied in the Question: that many children in primary schools—rising fives and four-year-olds—are receiving nursery education? Anyone who has looked at this matter, especially in the North of England, knows that many of these children are going into reception classes and are not receiving nursery education, despite what has been spelt out in the circular.

Mrs. Thatcher: I think the hon. Lady will agree that the reply which I gave answers accurately the Question. When I first went to the Department I was requested by the National Union of Teachers and many education authorities to admit children at the beginning of the year in which they were five. This was not previously allowed under the old Circular 860 but it obtained during the hon. Lady's tenure of office.

Miss Lestor: Will the right hon. Lady answer the supplementary question? How many of the full-time places are now part-time places, which has the effect of raising the figures, and what does she intend to do about the rising fives and four-year-olds in primary classes who are not receiving nursery education?

Mrs. Thatcher: I think that the hon. Lady will find the answer to the last part of her question in the circular which said that it was better, as I have said many times in the House, for children under five to have full-scale nursery provision. It is better for children to be in school than not there-at all, for them to be where their parents wished them to be. Many parents prefer their children, before the age of five, to go to school part-time, but there will be some provision for full-time education.

Mrs. Renée Short: As the education authorities have put in considerable demands for a share of the money allocated under the White Paper—this has now been exceeded will the right hon. Lady say what she is doing to make more money available to meet the demands of the LEAs?

Mrs. Thatcher: This 10-year programme is a great advance on anything which has been achieved before, and the


first two years of the programme will go ahead with the money allocated which, as the hon. Lady knows, was increased by 22 per cent. because of the recent cost limit increase.

Degrees and Qualifications

Miss Fookes: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will issue a list naming the institutions offering bogus qualifications.

Mrs. Thatcher: No, Sir. I have issued a list of authentic degrees and equivalent qualifications awarded in the United Kingdom. This is a more effective safeguard and anyone in doubt can consult the list.

Miss Fookes: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the only effective way of dealing with this matter is by legislation prohibiting completely the activities of such institutions?

Mrs. Thatcher: I am not sure that that would be the only effective way. It would mean setting up a vast registration system, which would mean yet another extension of bureaucracy. At present the best way is to have a list of authentic degrees and to see that it is readily and easily available. The fault is not limited to bogus degrees in this country; many are granted abroad.

Mr. Lipton: Is the right hon. Lady aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Wandsworth, Central (Mr. Thomas Cox) has introduced a Bill that would go some way to deal with the racket of "phoney" degrees? Will she see that the Government expedite the passage of that Bill?

Mrs. Thatcher: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on asking that question a day before the House rises. I hardly think there would be time before then.

Mr. Boyden: Surely the Government could prosecute firms in England which issue bogus degrees. Will her Department consider that?

Mrs. Thatcher: Prosecutions are not a matter for my Department they would probably be for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Miss Lestor: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she is

satisfied with the distribution of the information she has prepared on recognised degrees and qualifications; and in how many countries this is now available.

Mrs. Thatcher: Yes, Sir. The number of countries to which the information has been sent is 134.

Miss Lestor: Is not the right hon. Lady aware that the whole education world is angry about the attitude of the Government, particularly her own attitude, to the whole question? Many of my hon. Friends and I agree with the hon. Lady the Member for Merton and Morden (Miss Fookes) about legislation. Has the Secretary of State had any discus. sions with the people my hon. Friend the Member for Wandsworth, Central (Mr. Thomas Cox) and I have mentioned who have done a great deal of work Mr. Day and Mr. Lydden-Jones—on bogus qualifications and their repeated recommendations about legislation?

Mrs. Thatcher: The subject was brought to my attention by the Council for the Accreditation of Correspondence Colleges. As a result, we went into the problem and we have taken steps of which the hon. Lady knows.

Arts Council Grants

Mr. Iremonger: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will introduce legislation to enable grants made by the Arts Council to be subject to parliamentary approval and control.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: No, Sir. My noble Friend is satisfied with the present procedures for the grant-in-aid.

Mr. Iremonger: How am I to get some money for the Redbridge Youth Brass Band?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Not from me, I am afraid, nor from the Arts Council, since the Arts Council does not make grants to individual local bands, brass or otherwise. Local authorities are able to make grants to students to attend the National Youth Brass Band courses, of which there are two a year, and many students do. I do not know whether the local authority represented by my hon. Friend makes grants, but that could be another source of income. About 100 youngsters a year attend each course. They obtain modest grants of about £5


and 1 believe that they are extremely profitable.

Mr. David Clark: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what has been the percentage change in the amount of money granted to the Arts Council since June 1970.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Eighty-seven per cent. more.

Mr. Clark: Hon. Members will be pleased with the considerable increase in the amount of money granted to the Arts Council, but will the Minister draw to the attention of the Arts Council the importance of the brass band movement to culture in certain parts of this country and request it to give money either through the regional councils to individual brass bands or direct to the National Youth Brass Band?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: It is not my function to make such a request but I have been in correspondence with the Arts Council about this topic, in which the hon. Member has for a long time taken a keen personal interest. I am pleased to be able to say that I heard recently from the Chairman of the Arts Council that its music panel reacted encouragingly to general proposals from the bands' musical adviser and that the musical director of the Arts Council has written for costed, specific proposals that will enlarge its musical scope. Although the responsibility rests with the Arts Council, I am sanguine that the hon. Member's campaign will eventually have a happy outcome.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Is not this a classic example of the way in which popular art receives far greater emphasis under the present Government? Will my hon. Friend encourage this trend?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I think that we need both popular and elite art.

Mr. Faulds: Does the junior Minister realise that it is well past time that his right hon. Friend increased Arts Council funding specifically to deal with the great needs of housing the museums, as recommended by the latest report which, apparently, the Paymaster-General has peremptorily dismissed, and housing music throughout these islands?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I think that the junior Shadow, if there be such a creature, has not studied his Order Paper, because there is a later Question on this subject in his own name.

Careers Guidance

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she has yet received the report of Her Majesty's Inspectorate on careers education and guidance in secondary schools; and whether she will make a statement.

Mrs. Thatcher: The report which has just been completed reached me yesterday. I have not yet had time to study it fully.

Mr. Knox: In view of the considerable public interest in this matter, does my right hon. Friend intend to publish the report?

Mrs. Thatcher: Yes, Sir.

Scientific Research

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions she has had with the European Space Research Organisation on the level of the British contribution to scientific research.

Mrs. Thatcher: In December 1971 the future total level of expenditure on the scientific programme of the European Space Research Organisation was agreed by member States of the organisation and the British contribution to it remains in line with that agreement.

Mr. Dalyell: Is it accepted that on 15th August the Government will have to make a critical decision for high technology in this country, namely, whether to accept the American offer of participation in the post-Apollo programme? In these circumstances, what is the position on the crucial question of a maritime satellite?

Mrs. Thatcher: The hon. Gentleman is asking about the technology side of the space programme, which he knows full well is a matter for the Department of Trade and Industry. I am responsible for £3·2 million on the fundamental research side and a £500,000 contribution to ESRO, which was in line with the December 1971 agreement. The hon.


Gentleman is asking about the contribution from the Department of Trade and Industry. Negotiations will be conducted through it between now and the middle of August.

Mr. Marten: Does my right hon. Friend relish having responsibility for matters of space satellites in her Department?

Mrs. Thatcher: I am always happy to have fundamental research done on a budget within my Department. It is a limited amount of the space programme.

Office for Scientific and Technical Information

Mr. Adam Hunter: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she is satisfied with the results being achieved by the work of the Office for Scientific and Technical Information; and if she will make a statement.

Mrs. Thatcher: I am satisfied that there is wide recognition of OSTI's work in investigating thought about information needs, methods of handling and presenting information, and problems of system management and of professional and user education. All projects supported by OSTI are independently refereed and the balance of work so supported is reviewed annually by the Advisory Committee for Scientific and Technical Information.

Mr. Hunter: Is the right hon. Lady satisfied that all computerised technical information services are more efficient and less costly than other systems? Is she aware of the strong feeling that there has been a great deal of wasteful expenditure by the Office for Scientific and Technical Information? Would not the right hon. Lady agree that, because the argument about manually operated and computerised services will continue for some time, an independent inquiry should be held and a committee composed of nonscientists should be set up to discover the merits and demerits of both systems?

Mrs. Thatcher: I doubt very much whether, on research projects, a committee of non-scientists could adjudicate on computer or manual methods for the retrieval of information. I think the hon. Gentleman knows that OSTI receives few applications for work of a manual kind and that none has yet won support from

independent referees. OSTI has set up a committee to consider this matter, and one of the persons about whom the hon. Gentleman is particularly concerned has been invited to attend.

Student Unions

Mr. Norman Lamont: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans she has for the reform of student unions.

Mrs. Thatcher: Responsibility for approving changes in student union constitutions rests, generally speaking, with the authorities of universities and colleges. Proposals to change the present system of financing the unions have been under discussion between my Department and the various interests concerned, but no agreement has been reached. I propose to consider the matter further in the light of the Government's decision to finance 90 per cent. of the cost of mandatory student awards.

Mr. Lamont: Does my right hon. Friend remember the case in which Mr. Justice Brightman recently ruled that student unions were educational trusts and could disburse their funds only for educational purposes? Is it not also the case that the Secretary of State has responsibility for educational trusts stemming from the 1944 Act? What action does my right hon. Friend propose to take to exercise those responsibilities and to prevent the abuse of student union funds, which I believe was one of the reasons for her previous proposals?

Mrs. Thatcher: The charitable jurisdiction of the Department is in process of being transferred, but from my recollection the case to which my hon. Friend refers was a specific one. It would not mean that all unions were themselves charitable trusts. Therefore, the rule in that case would not apply to them all.

Mr. Moyle: While we are on the subject of students and mandatory awards, may I ask whether the right hon. Lady knows that the regulations she is laying before the House this afternoon for improving student awards do not include provision for the £20 increase for married women about which she made such great play in her announcement on 15th May? Is not this either massive cynicism towards married women students or massive incompetence?

Mr. Speaker: Order. This Question is about student unions.

Mr. John Mendelson: Will the right hon. Lady bear in mind that a large body of opinion both inside and outside the universities is completely opposed to any action which would stifle freedom of expression for student unions and which would stifle the growing interest among students in public affairs and their bearing witness to the moral involvement they feel, which they also want to show by contributing their funds? Will she retuse to listen to the reactionary voices behind her?

Mrs. Thatcher: I do not think that many of the hon. Gentleman's questions arise from the original Question. Other people, who feel equally strongly about moral involvement, think that there should perhaps be, for the better freedom of expression, rules which monitor student unions as regards their regulations with regard to elections and taking decisions, to make certain that they are properly and democratically taken. The objective may well be the same as the hon. Gentleman's, but there are different arguments about the way in which those objectives should he achieved.

Provincial Museums and Galleries

Mr. Strauss: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she can now state what action she proposes to take on the recommendations contained in her departmental report on provincial museums and galleries.

Mr. Faulds: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what action she intends to take following the publication of the report on provincial museums and galleries.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I would refer the right hon. and hon. Members to the answer given by my right hon. Friend on 28th June in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke). My noble Friend has sent the hon. Members copies of his speech to the Museum Association conference in Dundee on 13th July.

Mr. Strauss: I appreciate that the Minister is increasing the purchase grant for the provincial museums and galleries, but does he not realise that their out-

standing need is money with which to improve the wholly inadequate accommodation in which the present exhibits are shown? In view of the recent resolution passed by the Museums Association deploring in the strongest possible terms—those words were used —the rejection by the Minister of the Wright Committee's major recommendation that a fund should be established for the housing of the museums similar to the housing of the arts, will he rapidly reconsider his regrettable decision?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I know that the right hon. Gentleman's disappointment is shared by a number of people, but to set up such a fund at a time of cutback in general Government capital investment would be merely to stimulate demands which could not be met and which would, therefore, increase frustration. I am happy to say that the Government are prepared to consider, together with local authorities, whether some form of central Government assistance within the arts programme would be justified in special cases of more than local significance. I hope that this will go some way towards meeting the point made by the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Crouch: May I remind my right hon. Friend that there are many of us who are particularly interested in pianos and organs? Could he pull out a few more stops and endeavour to rehouse the British Piano Museum at the David Salomans House, about which I have written?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I share my hon. Friend's interest in those instrument, as I play both of them myself. However, the responsibility for David Salomans House lies with the Department of Health and Social Security and not my Department.

Mr. Faulds: I thank the hon. Gentleman for salvaging my Question from the end of the Order Paper. As it is known that the committee, with the exception of the two departmental members, was unanimously in favour of a mandatory rate, will he get his right hon. Friend to carefully consider this proposal—

Mr. Fell: Carefully to consider.

Mr. Faulds: To carefully consider—I will use my own words; we need no


training from whippersnappers—because, contrary to the Paymaster-General's assertion, this does not involve centralised control?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: If I may intervene in this grammatical seminar, my noble Friend the Paymaster-General attaches the greatest importance to voluntary local effort and believes that a mandatory rate would not be appropriate but that we should encourage local authorities to fulfil their responsibilities in this respect.

School Transport

Dr. Marshall: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many meetings have been held by the Working Party on School Transport.

Mrs. Thatcher: Fifteen.

Dr. Marshall: Does the right hon. Lady agree that the working party, which was set up on 7th March 1972, is taking too long over a most urgent problem for my constituents—those who live in old Goole, Knottingley, Ferrybridge and Darrington? Will she specify dates by which the working party should make its final report to her?

Mrs. Thatcher: The working party has three more meetings arranged and I hope that the report will be available by the end of the year.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Does my right hon. Friend realise that there is considerable urgency in this matter? I have been pressing her for over 18 months to come to a conclusion about changing the existing system. By the end of the year for the working party's report is too late. Cannot she hurry on the working party and give the House her conclusions when we come back after the Summer Recess? The matter is urgent.

Mrs. Thatcher: There will be more meetings before the House returns. I have been squeezed between both sides of the House, if I might put it that way. I shall convey the views of both sides of the House to the chairman of the working party.

Deprived Areas

Mr. Deakins: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is her policy regarding the provision of

additional teaching resources for schools in areas of social deprivation.

Mrs. Thatcher: Authorities can apply for an increase in their quota of teachers to meet the needs of these areas.
Teachers in schools designated as of exceptional difficulty receive special additions to pay.
Capital programmes for the replacement or improvement of primary and secondary schools give some preference to deprived areas and a degree of priority will also be given in the new nursery programme for bids in respect of these areas.

Mr. Deakins: Is the right hon. Lady aware that one of the major difficulties facing London local education authorities is the worsening housing situation which affects their ability to attract and retain younger teachers? Is there anything further she can do to help local authorities like mine in this respect?

Mrs. Thatcher: As regards the housing problem, local authorities themselves have the best means to make houses available to teachers if they wish to do so. The initiative lies with them.

Mr. Meacher: Is the Minister aware that the latest Schools Council survey shows that no fewer than one-fifth of those leaving school at the age of 16 are judged to be capable of GCE A-level and that most of them are the children of semi-skilled and unskilled parents? Cannot she provide more precise information about how she intends to stop this continuing massive wastage of ability in our education system?

Mrs. Thatcher: We have taken the major step of raising the school leaving age. It has been raised for only a term and it is too soon to judge the effects. If young pupils wish to do so, they can stay on voluntarily after the school leaving age, or alternatively, go into the further education system.

Student Grants

Mr. Dormand: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will make a statement on maintenance allowances paid to pupils attending maintained schools beyond the compulsory school leaving age.

Mrs. Thatcher: I have nothing to add to the reply given to the Question by the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) on 15th May.—[Vol. 856, c. 1213.]

Mr. Dormand: Inadequate maintenance allowances are the biggest deterrent to pupils staying on at school. Is not that particulary true of pupils in the Northern Region? Has not the time now arrived when there ought to be national scales for maintenance allowances instead of having some of the pitifully inadequate allowances which some local education authorities provide?

Mrs. Thatcher: I do not believe that that is the biggest deterrent to pupils staying on after the compulsory school leaving age. Again, however, the remedy lies with the local authorities, and if we are to take ail their discretions away there will be little point in having local authorities.

Oral Answers to Questions — EXPORT DRIVE (AWARDS)

Mrs. Castle: asked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Departments of Employment and Trade and Industry in monitoring the effect of the prices and incomes policy on the export drive.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): Yes, Sir.

Mrs. Castle: Does not the Prime Minister think it absurd that under the pay code the firm of Singer in my constituency, which has recently won the Queen's Award to Industry for its outstanding export performance, has been refused permission to make a modest monetary award to its employees as a token of appreciation of their share in this achievement? How does the Prime Minister hope to promote exports by such meanness? Would he not have an exception made in a few clearly defined cases?

The Prime Minister: I have looked into this question carefully since I saw the right hon. Lady's letter. I agree that the workers and the firm are to be congratulated on winning the Queen's Award. I think the right hon. Lady will recognise, however, that in stage 2 it is not possible to have a definition which could be

clearly limited to cases of this kind. Obviously, the distribution of bonuses generally would have been a complete loophole in the whole of the arrangements under stage 2.
On the other hand, I think that it would have been possible for the firm—and, indeed, may still be possible for it if it so wishes—to do something as a firm which would benefit the workers as a whole. For example, if it could do so by provision of facilities for social or sporting activities that might well be considered by the Pay Board as suitable?

Mr. Tapsell: Is it not a fact that while the volume of our exports is already rising twice as fast as the volume of our imports, the extremely competitive price position which our goods now possess in many Western European countries presents British industry with a wonderful opportunity which it has a duty to seize?

The Prime Minister: Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right, and it is not only in Europe that it has this opportunity, but right across the world. Our exports this year are already 15 per cent. up in volume and 23 per cent. up in value, and that is a quite remarkable achievement for exports.

Oral Answers to Questions — REGIONAL EMPLOYMENT PREMIUM

Mr. Dormand: asked the Prime Minister whether, in any future talks with the TUC and the CBI, he will discuss the proposal to phase out the regional employment premium.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. John Smith) on 19th July.—[Vol. 860, c. 205.]

Mr. Dormand: The Prime Minister knows from our correspondence on this matter that I can speak on behalf of the 30 Labour Members in the Northern Region. Will he also be assured that I have the support of the trade unions in the region in urging the retention of REP beyond 1978? Is he aware that every organisation which has commented on REP has urged that it be retained, including the CBI which says that it should be retained in its present form


until at least 1978? In view of his continuing obstinancy in this matter, will the Prime Minister tell the House his reasons for contravening the views of all these responsible voices?

The Prime Minister: I told the House that the Government would carry out consultations with the CBI and TUC and take account of the other views that have been expressed. Those consultations have now been carried out and the Government are considering the best way of dealing with this matter and the phasing out of REP. When we have reached our conclusions, a statement will be made to the House.
When REP was introduced, it was for a period of seven years and the Labour Party, which introduced it, said it would then be phased out—[HoN. MEMBERS: "No."[Yes, indeed. The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said:
In our view it is right, as my right hon. Friend said, that the scheme should exist in full for seven years and that it should then begin to phase out—obviously a review will be made nearer to the time to see how it is going"—
That is what we are doing, and we have carried out the consultations—
but this is our present intention—coming to an end theoretically after 10 years or so, because we could take two or three years to phase it out."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th June, 1967; Vol. 747, c. 750.]
That was the Opposition's position when they were in office. There is no point in their trying to deny that their intention when they introduced REP was to phase it out after seven years.

Dame Irene Ward: As I feel strongly about this matter, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether since the TUC and the CBI both feel that, especially in the part of the country which the hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand) and I represent, something should be done about the regional employment premium, he will give an undertaking, after taking the advice of those bodies, that he will reconsider the Government's attitude? I am perfectly sincere in my request.

The Prime Minister: We are prepared to consider the matter further with the CBI and the TUC in the discussions we are having with them. The Government have announced their intention to carry

on REP for the full length of time and then to consider how it might best be phased out. What the Government have to consider is whether the use of the money in REP is the most cost-effective way of helping regional development. It must be of some importance that, since the Government reaffirmed their intention of having discussions and phasing out REP, unemployment in the development areas in which REP is paid has gone down by 108,000 and is continuing to fall.

Mr. Ewing: Is there not a great danger that the Prime Minister is open to the allegation that he does not want tripartite agreement in these talks? If, as the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) has said, the CBI and the TUC both want the regional employment premium to be retained, what valid reason can the Prime Minister give for withholding his agreement? The Prime Minister seems to be ruling this out, in addition to ruling out food subsidies and the withholding of rent increases. Are the talks worth holding in those circumstances?

The Prime Minister: I told the House that I am prepared to listen further to the CBI and the TUC. We can discuss this matter in the context of the economic situation. But what the Government wish to ensure is that the money spent on REP is the best means available of getting industry into the development areas and reducing unemployment.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Mr. Deakins: asked the Prime Minister what plans he has for further meetings with Heads of Government of EEC countries.

The Prime Minister: I expect to have further bilateral meetings with Heads of Government of EEC countries as the need arises but there are no arrangements for such meetings at present.

Mr. Deakins: At the next meeting with his colleagues, whenever that occurs, will the Prime Minister make two issues clear: first, that this country cannot be committed to European economic and monetary union until a decision has been taken by this House; and, secondly, that until such decision has been taken by


this House no one can commit this country to the second stage of the Common Market economic and monetary union?

The Prime Minister: The position on the question of the development of the Community in relation to economic and monetary union is the same as on any other aspect of Community development. The Government must retain the support of the House of Commons in carrying through the policies which were agreed at the summit.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: At the meetings will my right hon. Friend consider putting forward a suggestion which I have made in recent months both in this House and in the European Parliament? Will he advocate that the legislative processes of the Council of Ministers should be, as far as possible, held in public? Would not this have the advantage of making the Council, when it is formulating directives on matters which touch closely the lives of citizens in the member States, additionally sensitive to the views and feelings of those citizens, including our own?

The Prime Minister: I have seen the suggestion of my right hon. and learned Friend and noted it with great interest. As he will realise as well as anyone from his experience in the European Parliament, there are two sides to this question. The European Parliament—the report I have just received from our own representatives there emphasises this—feels somewhat frustrated by what it regards as the slow and clumsy method of operation of the Council of Ministers in Brussels.
The alternative proposal being put forward is that instead of a gathering of this kind being as large as it is, with almost all speeches immediately being relayed outside, it should be treated more on the basis of the Cabinet system in this country in which the Ministers can discuss among themselves in the customary way the policies they want to put forward. The proposals could then he put before the Parliament at Strasbourg or the Ministers' national Parliaments. Both these aspects need to be carefully considered.

Mr. Pardoe: Will the Prime Minister state his priorities vis-à-vis monetary union and political union in these dis-

cussions? Is he aware that many people consider that in the short term monetary union would be an unmitigated disaster for the British economy, and that the important priority is the democratic development of a United States of Europe?

The Prime Minister: That seems to be an unduly provocative question on the last day before we go on holiday. The concept at the summit meeting, which was embodied in the communiqué, was that political, economic and monetary developments would move together towards 1980. On the question of political consultation, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has just returned from Copenhagen and Brussels, where there were detailed political consultations about relations between Europe and the United States.
I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's remark that monetary union would be disastrous for the economy of the country, provided that we maintain the position that we have always maintained, namely that it can be brought about only if there is economic development at the same time. This involves regional policy to a large extent.

Mr. Benn: Will the Prime Minister be discussing with the Heads of Government of the Common Market countries the widening trade deficit between Britain and the Common Market? The gap has been widening sharply and cannot be explained by imports of raw materials. What action have the Government in mind to correct that situation?

The Prime Minister: As I have said that there is no plan for a meeting with the Heads of Government, the question does not arise.
The gap between the growth of our exports and imports between Europe and the United Kingdom is less than with the rest of the world. I am afraid, therefore, that the doctrine put forward by the right hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends, including one who is not on the Front Bench at the moment, that the trade gap is due to our entry into the Community and a failure of trade with the EEC is unsustainable.

Oral Answers to Questions — COUNTER-INFLATION POLICY

Mr. Adley: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his latest talks with the CBI and TUC.

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) on 19th July.—[Vol. 860, c. 203.]

Mr. Adley: Whilst recognising the electoral popularity and political attraction of worker participation, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he agrees that, if closer liaison between management and its work force is to be meaningful, it should be two-way participation? Will my right hon. Friend, when he next meets the TUC, discuss with it the possibility of management participation in the day-today affairs of trade unions in relevant companies?

The Prime Minister: I think that worker participation, which covers a wide range of activities in firms, is not a matter of interfering in management. It would therefore not be appropriate to say that management should interfere with or take a part in trade unions. What is required is that the two parties should discuss, and be as fully informed as possible about, the affairs of a company. In that way they can each contribute to the improvement and effectiveness of a company.

Mr. Atkinson: Will the Prime Minister make it clear to the House whether the Government will insist upon the trade unions accepting threshold agreements as a precedent to any further talks? Secondly, will he accept that it is an economic contradiction to rule out subsidies and price regulation while at the same time insisting upon threshold agreements?

The Prime Minister: What I said in my speech in the debate was that the Government would propose to both parties that threshold agreements should become part of the arrangements for stage 3 because we believe that that would be a valuable safeguard for everybody working in this country.
Of course the talks will go on. Each side is able to put forward proposals of

this kind to try to achieve the aim of the talks. It is our intention to look at the picture as a whole. I do not see any contradiction of the kind which the hon. Gentleman suggests. We have, in any case, price regulation in this country.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the extreme danger hi threshold agreements is that they institutionalise inflation and make the maximum the automatic minimum? Surely it would be better to look at productivity agreements rather than threshold agreements, which automatically mean inflation permanently installed.

The Prime Minister: The two matters are not mutually exclusive. I agree with my right hon. Friend that if threshold agreements are badly constructed the danger to which he refers exists. When this matter was first raised more than two years ago, that was the reason why it was remitted to "Neddy" for examination by the three parties. A great deal of work has been done since then, and I think that the TUC, the CBI and the Government are agreed that it is possible to construct threshold agreements that are valuable safeguards but not in themselves inflationary. Productivity agreements are a major item for discussion in these talks, and we recognise the importance that is attached to them.

Dr. Gilbert: When will the right hon. Gentleman be able to tell the TUC that the Price Commission will do something about bank profits? I ask that question in the light of the fact that the overwhelming proportion of the record increase in bank profits has come not from invisible exports but from gouging-out of the ordinary individual who happens to be in debt to the bank as a result of the Government's monetary and fiscal policies.

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman isaware of the terms of reference of the Price Commission and of the price code, he will know that there are full powers to act in the matter. The banks' profits have just been published. The Price Commission has full power to act. The controls since the standstill apply to dividends.

Mr. Prentice: Are we to take it from the Prime Minister's reply and from his speech last week that the concept of


threshold agreements is the only new initiative being proposed by the Government in the talks? If that is so, and if the Government are sticking to all the other policies which have contributed so much to inflation, does not that lend force to the view that the Government do not really seek agreement in the talks and that they are treating them as a public relations exercise?

The Prime Minister: Nothing of the sort. There is no point in the right hon. Gentleman and Opposition Members trying to discredit the talks. Neither the CBI nor the TUC has any intention of doing so. They are absolutely genuine in the part they are playing in the talks, and so are we.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether any new initiatives are to come forward. That is a matter for the talks themselves. I took this specific initiative to tell the House before we go on to the next stage that it is a matter to which all three parties attach great importance. As to the rest, they will come forward in the rest of the talks.

Mr. Adley: I used the word "participation and not" interference "in my supplementary question to the Prime Minister.

ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS

Mr. Clinton Davis: Mr. Clinton Davis (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement concerning the action he proposes to take relating to 36 illegal immigrants now held in custody.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Robert Carr): I have considered these 36 cases very carefully and have taken into account the length of time each man has been here; the strength of connection, if any, with this country; personal history, including character, conduct, employment record and the like; domestic circumstances; age and medical condition; any other relevant factor, including compassionate circumstances; and any representations made to me. Having done so, I have decided to allow nine of these men, exceptionally, to remain here. In the case of one other it has been decided that his entry was not illegal. One has already been sent back

at his own request, and arrangements will now be made for the others to be returned overseas.

Mr. Davis: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the situation could be eased considerably if he were to follow the example which has been set by the French Government? A limited amnesty would avoid much of the difficulty with which we are now confronted. Is he aware that the French Government have granted a limited amnesty for one year? Further, is he aware that they have done so because they feel that it would he a matter, of compassion to follow that course?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, notwithstanding the instruction which he has given to the police, that it is all too easy for a police officer to say to someone, "I suspect you of being an illegal immigrant", whether or not that belief is well justified? Would not a limited amnesty for this specific class of immigrant solve much of the difficulty which we are bound to have and which is bound to arise in future?

Mr. Carr: The occasions when individual police officers do that sort of thing are, luckily, extremely limited in Britain. It is a risk which any of us run when suspected, rightly or wrongly, by a police officer. It is by no means a risk confined to immigrants. I have noted the action of the French Government. I believe that for many reasons, including scale, the circumstances in France are very different. In any event, the House considered and decisively rejected the question of an amnesty two or three weeks ago.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. How did the last Question come within the orbit of a Private Notice Question? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has tried this before. He is not entitled to ask that. Whether a Question comes within the orbit of a Private Notice Question is entirely a matter for me until the House decides otherwise. I should not mind if it did, but until it does so it is a matter for me.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order. Under the rules of the House Question Time ends at half-past three.
This Question would seem to be an ordinary Question which has been put out of its normal order. I should have thought that the House would like to know how is comes within this category so that hon. Members may make use of this procedure.

Mr. Speaker: No.

Mr. Grieve: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that the sort of amnesty which he has been invited to introduce by the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) would constitute an invitation and an encouragement to the international organisations which are now engaged on a large scale in bringing illegal immigrants to this country?

Mr. Carr: I have already explained to the House why the Government do not believe that it would be right to grant such an amnesty and why it is right to deal with cases in the way in which they are now being dealt with.

Mr. Bidwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the amount of trafficking in illegal immigration is a tiny proportion of the totality of the problem? Further, is he aware that what he has just announced will go hardly a step towards allaying the natural fears of many citizens of this country who settled here quite legitimately and who are hardworking people? They are fears which are natural in the present climate and the present situation.
The right hon. Gentleman has announced that nine of the 36 immigrants in Pentonville are to remain. Does that mean that in the remaining number there are heads of families? Does it mean that children born in this country who are patrials will also be asked to accompany their parents? The right hon. Gentleman has no legal entitlement to deport such children? Will they be asked to leave with heads of families?

Mr. Carr: I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman's assessment of the danger, actual and potential, of traffic in illegal immigration. It is impossible to quantify, but I think that anyone with experience in this area knows of the danger. The actual danger isa real one and if we did not deal with the matter firmly the potential danger would be even greater.
It is important not to arouse needless fears. I am sure that that would not be the wish of the hon. Gentleman, having regard to the constituency which he represents. Perhaps it was of some value that he should have raised the matter so that some of the fears implicit in his question could be dealt with.
It may interest the hon. Gentleman, his constituents and the House to know that of the 36 immigrants, only two had wives in this country. The other 34 were either unmarried or, in most cases, married but with their wives and children overseas and not in this country. There is no question of removing families. Of the two with a wife in this country, I am granting one person with a wife and family the right to stay. The other was married for precisely one day and his wife had already started divorce action against him.

HOTEL FIRE (OBAN)

Mr. Noble: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the hotel fire in Oban, Argyll this morning.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): Just after four o'clock this morning a fire call was received from the police about a fire at the Esplanade Hotel, Oban. The fire station at Oban turned out two fire engines immediately and at the same time summoned assistance which was provided from Lochgilphead and Inveraray. When the Oban fire engines arrived at the hotel they saw flames coming from the upper floors and in the roof of the six-storey building.
A full report on the incident is not yet available, but I regret that it appears that at least nine persons have died and that about 20 are in hospital, some with serious injuries.
I know that the House will wish to express its sympathy with all those who have been bereaved or injured.
The circumstances are being immediately investigated and my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate will then consider whether a fatal accident inquiry should be arranged.

Mr. Noble: May I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement? Is he


aware that I am glad that an appropriate inquiry will take place in due course? At this stage may I simply express on behalf of my constituents and myself, and particularly those in the Oban area, our deep regret over this tragedy and our sympathy for the relatives of those who died in the fire?
Is my right hon. Friend aware that this morning I spoke to the Provost of Oban on the telephone? Is he further aware that I would like to express my gratitude and I am sure that of the House to the fire brigades and the police and hospital services as well as to all the voluntary services and the large number of members of the public who did everything they could to minimise the suffering of those involved?

Mr. Campbell: I am sure that the services will appreciate what my right hon. Friend said.

Mr. William Hannan: While I join in the expression of sympathy and thank the Secretary of State for his statement may I, without trying to prejudice any inquiry, ask whether the Secretary of State recalls the Press concern, expressed in the Glasgow Herald and the Scotsman on behalf of some local authorities, over the slowness with which hotels are registering under the Fire Protection (Loans) Act, whereby hotels may obtain loans to carry out fire protection schemes? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the inquiry will be reminded of the circumstances of this Act?

Mr. Campbell: Without commenting on this case, I am aware of the concern expressed. I, too, am concerned that we should proceed with inspections following the Fire Protection (Loans) Act as quickly, and in as orderly a fashion, as possible.

Mr. Carmichael: May I associate the Opposition with the expressions of sympathy, particularly with the relatives of those who died in the fire? May I express the hope that those who were injured will soon recover? Dealing with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. William Hannan), may I also ask the right hon. Gentleman to look at the

question—during the inquiry or subsequent to it—whether the loans granted under the Act are sufficient to allow hotels to install adequate fire protection?

Mr. Campbell: I will certainly look into that again.

Mr. Ronald King Murray: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the fire engines had to cover a distance of 40 miles? Will he look into this unsatisfactory situation particularly in view of the large population that Oban has, especially during the summer holiday period?

Mr. Campbell: That is not the case. The hon. and learned Member clearly did not hear what I said at the beginning of my statement. The two fire engines at Oban were on the scene within five minutes of receiving the call. Other fire engines from places nearly 40 miles away came in about an hour to give added assistance.

Mr. William Hamilton: May I ask at this point whether this hotel is conforming with the fire regulations?

Mr. Campbell: That is a matter which will have to be gone into. I cannot at this notice make any comment upon it.

Mr. Edward Short: Will the right hon. Gentleman look rather wider, at the large number of deaths which have taken place through fire in Scotland in the last year or so, with a view to establishing whether there is a common factor? For example, there has been modernisation of old stone buildings. Will he see whether there is a common factor in these terrible tragedies?

Mr. Campbell: There have been a number of fires in Glasgow which have given cause for concern. I take it that that is the area to which the right hon. Gentleman is referring. We are looking for any common factors, and we know of some. There could be more arising from this further fire.

CONFERENCE ON ELECTORAL LAW

Mr. Speaker: I told the House on 16th March that I would announce when final agreement had been reached on the terms of reference of the Conference on Electoral Law over which I preside.
The terms which are now agreed are these:
To examine, and if possible submit agreed resolutions on, the following matters relating to parliamentary elections:

1. The franchise, particularly in relation to British subjects normally resident in the United Kingdom but temporarily living abroad.
2. Electoral registration, particularly—

(a) the registration timetable, and the frequency of publishing the register;
(b) multiple registration and the definition of "residence";
(c) registration of Service men.

3. Minimum age for election.
4. Election expenditure generally.
5. Conduct of elections, particularly—

(a) candidates' descriptions;
(b) problems relating to committee rooms;
(c) absent voting;
(d) appointment of polling day as a public holiday;
(e) day of the week for polling day;
(f) polling hours;
(g) marking of electoral numbers on ballot paper counterfoils;
(h) timing of by-elections.

6. Cost of election petitions.
7. Rules 4–7 in Schedule 2 to the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1949.

The House will be aware, from my announcement on 16th March, that the Conference has already been considering Items 2 and 3—"Electoral Registration", and" Minimum Age for Election "—and has reported its conclusions on some of the issues raised.
Communications relating to the other items will be welcomed by the Conference. They should be addressed to one of the joint Secretaries, Mr. Pring, The Journal Office, House of Commons, in order to reach him before the House resumes on 16th October.

Mr. Edward Short: The House will be grateful for that statement, Mr. Speaker. You used the expression" final agreement." Will you confirm that in a sense

this is an interim agreement and that, provided that the parties can agree, there is nothing to prevent items being added later?

Mr. Speaker: The words "final agreement" were not intended to mean agreement excluding anything else. It was the wrong use of the word "final". What I really meant by the use of the epithet was that it was an agreement that had taken a very long time to reach.

Mr. Short: Will you confirm that additional items can be added later?

Mr. Speaker: Certainly—if there is agreement and if the Conference also agrees.

CHANNEL TUNNEL

The Minister for Transport Industries (Mr. John Peyton): I will, with permission, Mr. Speaker, make a statement about the Channel Tunnel.
The House will recall that on 15th June I said that if the Government were to decide in favour of the Channel Tunnel I would announce the fact and publish a short Money Bill before the recess.
Financial negotiations between my French colleague and myself and the private interests are still continuing but they have not yet been concluded. This is necessary before the Government can take their decision on the project as a whole and I am therefore not yet able to announce one today.
The Government's decision, when it is taken, will be announced in the form of a White Paper. If it is affirmative, draft clauses of a Money Bill which we would propose to introduce into the House immediately we resume in October would be included in the White Paper. There is, of course, no question of signing any agreement or Anglo-French treaty before this Bill is passed.
I am sure that the House will agree that it would be wrong for the Government to decide on a matter of this importance before all aspects of the proposals, including the financing terms, have been satisfactorily resolved. Equally, once a decision is reached, it would be wrong to delay an announcement. We would wish to provide the fullest possible opportunity for it to be considered, by the public as


well as hon. Members, before we resume in October.

Mr. Crosland: What an admirable Minister we have! He is a true object lesson to his colleagues. He keeps his word to the House, he wants us to have the fullest information before we come to a decision, he refuses to sanction gigantic expenditure on grandiose projects without adequate discussion. He is a man of great virtue—at least on this occasion.
We must contrast him, inevitably favourably, with his colleagues the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for the Environment, determined to push on with their mad plan for Heathograd in South-East Essex. Is he aware that, while many of us feel that there is a prima facie case for the Channel Tunnel on certain conditions, the House must have, before it reaches a final decision, the following studies: first, a study of the regional effects, promised in the Green Paper; secondly, a study of the balance of payments effects, which was also promised in the Green Paper; thirdly, a statement about the consequential rail investment which will be more than is stated in the little, glossy and flimsy brochure produced by British Rail; fourthly. a definite decision on the site of the London rail terminal on which the Greater London Council is still undecided; and, fifth, perhaps the most important, that a Government analysis should be provided with consideration of the case recently argued by Professor Bromhead, amongst others, and by more and more people, of confining the project to a rail-only tunnel without car and lorry shuttle services and therefore without a huge terminal in Cheriton in Kent. Without this further information it will be impossible for anybody to come to a rational decision and we shall have the tragi-comedy of Maplin all over again.
If the Minister provides this information to the House before a decision is taken, as I am sure he will, then he will genuinely earn the gratitude of the House and the country.

Mr. Peyton: I am half grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his compliments, because one has to judge a compliment not only by its content but by the direction from which it comes. On this occasion the right hon. Gentleman

might have been doing me a doubtful service. Nevertheless, in a manner of speaking, I am grateful. Of course, I take note of all the important matters to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. If the Government were to reach a favourable decision on the matter to go ahead with the next phase, naturally many of these points would be fully dealt with in what would be a large White Paper.

Mr. Crouch: I take my right hon. Friend's answer in a somewhat different attitude of mind from that of the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland). I take it with a considerable degree of caution, although I am glad that my right hon. Friend and the Government have given themselves more time to consider not only the financial arrangements but the whole proposals. I am not dog-in-the manger about the proposition for a Channel Tunnel, and nor is anyone in Kent, but there is growing anxiety among the people of Kent that their views about the protection of their environment may not be taken sufficiently into account. With great sincerity I ask my right hon. Friend to consider the question of there being no terminal at Cheriton but that a loading stage in London for roll-on, roll-off vehicles would overcome a great deal of opposition which otherwise would undoubtedly grow in Kent.

Mr. Peyton: I shall not be tempted even by my hon. Friend to go into details at this stage. I am glad to recognise, however, that he is not a dog and he is not in a manger.

Mr. Jay: In order to earn further gratitude from the House, will the Minister tell us whether the project, if it goes ahead, will involve extensive widening of railway lines in South-West and West London?

Mr. Peyton: The answer is that it probably will not. I prefer not to go into detail, but British Rail has given some idea, in an admittedly slim brochure, of its approach to the tunnel if the Government give it their approval. In the event of that approval, it would be for British Rail to develop its attitude to the project much more clearly.

Mr. Peter Rees: In view of the widespread concern in my constituency about the impact of the tunnel on East Kent,


and in view of the feeling that a hybrid Bill may not give sufficient scope for objectors, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will make himself available for consultations with local authorities and interested parties before any major decision is taken?

Mr. Peyton: I have been in regular contact with hon. Members who represent Kent constituencies. I have been also on a number of occasions to Kent and had regular contact with Kent County Council and other local authorities. If we decide to go ahead it will be my immediate concern to do all I can to minimise the inevitable nuisance and inconvenience which will be caused.

Mr. Pardoe: Did the Minister approve the glossy leaflet sent to hon. Members by British Rail? Did he approve of the implication that British Rail would have monopoly services through the tunnel? How does that fit into the Government's competition policy? Will he refer to the Monopolies Commission before making a decision?

Mr. Peyton: That is an original idea, but not one that I shall follow to its ultimate conclusion. It would be strictly accurate to say that British Rail let me see a copy of the brochure before issuing it. But it is British Rail's document and I do not believe in running its business.

Mr. Fell: Will my right hon. Friend, who has come half way to agreeing with the Opposition, help some of his hon. Friends to agree with him by giving us a promise that no Government or taxpayers' money would be involved in building the Chunnel if it ever happened?

Mr. Peyton: It is impossible for me to give that sweeping guarantee. The finance for the project is to be raised by private sources, but there will be Government guarantees. It is unlikely that we would go ahead with the project if there were any foreseeable likelihood of those guarantees being called. Even in the most perfect organisation things can go wrong. One must always admit that possibility.

Mr. Charles R. Morris: Will the Minister say that financial considerations will not be the sole criteria for determining the Government's policy on building the

tunnel? Is he aware of the widely-held belief that building the Channel Tunnel will have a contradictory impact on the French and British economies, that it will go some way to alleviate French regional problems while accentuating Britain's regional problems by encouraging a drift to the South-East? Why is the Minister reluctant to give an assurance that a study of the impact on Britain's regional problems will be undertaken before the Government's decision is finally made on the project?

Mr. Peyton: The regional aspects of the problem have been carefully considered. It is no fault of mine that the South-East of England happens to be the bit nearest to the Continent of Europe. It happens to be one of those mischances of geography for which not even the Department of the Environment is to be blamed. The hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Woodside (Mr. Neil Carmichael), who made an interesting speech on this subject in the recent short debate, pointed out that undoubted advantages were to be gained in Scotland from having the tunnel because it would introduce a long rail haul from Scotland and other regions of the country to the Continent of Europe.

Dame Irene Ward: Has my right hon. Friend seen my motion on the Order Paper arguing that expenditure on the Fleet Air Arm is more important than expenditure on the Channel Tunnel? Will he bear in mind when he is discussing all these factors about the Channel Tunnel that I would far rather see the Fleet Air Arm satisfactorily settled and its expenses met before we take a decision about the Channel Tunnel? It is far more important for the defence of this country that the Fleet Air Arm is properly provided for. If my right hon. Friend does not bear that in mind, I shall vote against the Channel Tunnel.

Mr. Peyton: I am covered in confusion and shame, because I have not seen my hon. Friend's motion on the Order Paper. I shall immediately remedy that dreadful omission, for which I apologise to her. I must also apologise to her for the fact that my responsibilities at the moment do not include the Fleet Air Arm, greatly as I should wish to support that important arm of our Services.

Mr. Sheldon: Will the right hon. Gentleman use the coming two or three months while making up his mind on this project to examine further the alternative forms of a Channel link? Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that when a group of international civil engineers visited him a couple of months ago and discussed these matters with him they were far from satisfied that there had ever been even a cursory examination of other forms suitable to modern technology?

Mr. Peyton: Bitter experience has taught me that it is very hard to satisfy some people, however much one tries. Alternative means have been studied exhaustively throughout the period—

Mr. Sheldon: They have not.

Mr. Peyton: The project which has been brought to a certain stage of development now is that of a bored rail tunnel under the Channel. We have to decide yes or no about that one. It may be that we ought also to start looking at other projects. But there is no question of any alternative being available to meet the needs of traffic in the 1980s.

Mr. Deedes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we may find ourselves in a difficulty? To judge from the plans which have appeared on paper, what is planned by British Rail for this project may be more environmentally disruptive than the tunnel itself. If the Government propose to produce a White Paper during the recess, a number of matters such as this will remain highly speculative and we shall not be able to give the public the material on which to make up their minds until British Rail has gone a lot further in its planning.

Mr. Peyton: I readily acknowledge the difficulty to which my right hon. Friend draws attention. The exhaustive study

which will have to be made by British Rail will take place after and not before the Government have made this decision. This decision is merely to go ahead to the next phase, after which a hybrid Bill will have to be produced, which would take some time before it completed its passage through Parliament. During that time it would be for British Rail to carry out far more detailed study than any thing that they have done to date and to make the results available.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,

That, at this day's Sitting, Mr. Speaker shall put any Question necessary to dispose of Proceedings on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House moved by a Minister of the Crown not later than Seven o'clock.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your guidance on a matter involving gross discourtesy? I put down yesterday for answer a Written Question about the imposition of museum charges. Today I have had a reply referring to a Question, which my own Question pre-dated, tabled by the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke). Is there any step that I can take to rectify this gross discourtesy? If the Government intend to press ahead with the imposition of these ridiculous charges on 1st January 1974, why have they not the guts to say so in this House?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds) has raised a point—it is not necessarily a point of order. Nevertheless, he has made his point. I hope that those concerned will have regard to what he said and will consider it.

HOUSING (OWNER-OCCUPIERS' UNDER-OCCUPIED HOMES) BILL

4.5 p.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to facilitate the letting of surplus accommodation in the possession of owner-occupiers to provide homes to rent and for purposes connected therewith.
No one will disagree that there is at present a great need for more homes. In certain areas there is a crying need. One solution which is being tried is to build more new homes. Progress is being made in that direction. But the building industry is overstretched and unable to cope with the present demand. It will be some time before it can do so.
This process is not the whole solution, anyway. These will all be homes for sale. That presupposes that there are those who can afford to buy, and that means that they will seek mortgages. There is at present great difficulty over mortgages. I can only reflect that if it were possible to halve the cost of mortgages we might end up by doubling the price of the scarce houses which people seek to buy with mortgages—so that it is no solution to enable more people to chase after the scarce commodity in limited supply, namely, homes.
There is an undoubted need for more homes to rent. Young people especially are immensely mobile and expect to move about from year to year in the course of their jobs. Any ambitious young man or woman wanting to work his or her way up the promotion ladder must expect to have to move about the country. Certainly in central Government and local government service and in the professions one must expect to move about in order to gain promotion. These young people, who are desperately anxious to buy in many cases and who put pressure on the scarce commodity, mortgages, would rent if they could. But they cannot because there is a diminishing supply of rented homes available.
The reason for this is that all the pressures are against any increase in the supply, certainly in the sector about which I am talking. The owner of a house who wants to make another home available in some spare accommodation

can, under the existing law, find himself stuck with a tenant for ever at a controlled, uneconomic rent. This is the situation which has grown up over the years.
In my Bill I propose that new homes may be created out of existing owner-occupied houses. The speculator does not come into this. It has to be an owner-occupied house with a spare room or rooms which can be turned into another home. But in this case I believe that we should take a fresh look. These newly-created homes should not be subject to the restrictive Rent Acts and all that has been piled on them. They should be subject to proper leases agreed between the owners and those who will occupy the accommodation. They should be leases for a minimum period, both sides to an agreement knowing exactly where they stand. There should be a proper period of notice to terminate an agreement written into the lease. If Parliament insists that someone should act as a kind of "nanny" in a situation of this sort, it will be seen that I have written into my Bill a provision for the rent officer to be brought in to approve leases, though I doubt whether that will be necessary.
I believe that we should start afresh in an attempt to release some of this vast untapped wealth of potential homes. The Government cannot say that there is not a vast wealth of homes which could be made available, because they have no figures. I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction on the Treasury Bench because he has answered a great many Questions from me and he will have to admit that the Government have not the information on which to answer the case that I am making.
A couple of weeks ago I was told in a Parliamentary Answer that the Government were thinking of trying to tackle this problem in the way that I am suggesting. I hope that as a result of what I say today and with the holiday before them, they will be able to think again. There is a vast number of potential homes for rent, perhaps as many as a million in the country as a whole. Many are in the areas of greatest need in the great cities where new building will never solve the problem.
So far all other attempts to bring this wealth of accommodation on to the market have failed. Bribes, in the form of grants, have not had the dramatic effect some of us had hoped. Threats and coercion through the rates have done no good to help the situation. The uncertainties created by those who by political threats say that they will take away the freedoms which exist do nothing to help the position. I hope that if the matter is considered dispassionately both sides of the House will be prepared to give freedom and to strive for change. It is worth a tiny. We cannot afford to neglect this untapped source of homes which are so badly needed.
I have received a good deal of encouragement from my hon. Friends on this matter, but I come before the House this afternoon without any sponsors for my Bill. This is deliberate. I hope in the new Session to introduce the Bill again, but I regard today as an opportunity to ventilate the matter. Only the Abdication Act went through both Houses of Parliament in one day, and there are not many Members left who remember how that went through. It is significant that hon. Members from both sides of the House have combined to make this a worthwhile effort in seeking to increase the number of desperately needed homes for rent.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Robert Cooke.

HOUSING (OWNER-OCCUPIERS' UNDER-OCCUPIED HOMES)

Bill to facilitate the letting of surplus accommodation in the possession of owner-occupiers to provide homes to rent and for the purposes connected therewith presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 204.]

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

METRICATION

4.14 p.m.

The Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): This is the second occasion in the last three years on which the House has had an oportunity to debate the subject of metrication. It was last discussed in October 1970. In February 1972 the Government published the White Paper on metrication. It is right that we should have this further opportunity of discussing the subject. I say this not only because it is important for the House to have such an opportunity but because I know that this is a subject on which many people outside this House are interested. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are the Opposition?"] I am grateful for the support of my hon. Friends.
Attitudes towards metrication are not based on party lines but still tend to divide into two different groups. On the one hand, there is anxiety among a number of people at the idea of this change. On the other hand there is anxiety—indeed more than anxiety, very real pressure—for the change to be made at greater speed and indeed with more enthusiasm. The arguments in favour of change spring principally, but by no means only, from those who are responsible for the future of British industry. The House may have seen that only two weeks ago I received a deputation from the CBI which expressed the view that a
decisive lead and specific action by Government are urgently needed".
This is in line with the view that has been expressed on behalf of industry since at least 1965.
One reason why industry argues in favour of change is that the metric system is simpler. The combination of decimal currency and metric quantities greatly simplifies price calculations.
The most important reason springs from the extent to which we are as a country dependent on the prosperity and expansion of our international trade. The fact is that for some years now British industry has been competing in world markets at an increasing disadvantage. As this fact is recognised by more and more other countries around the world, the disadvantage is growing. Perhaps the most significant fact is the


extent to which this message has been taken on board by almost every one of our partners or former partners in the Commonwealth.
Australia and New Zealand, who started after us, have now overtaken us. Many of the African States in the Commonwealth have already changed and the Caribbean States are beginning their own change. South Africa, one of our most important markets, will have completed the change by the end of this year. Canada is committed to changing without waiting for the United States, to which critics of the change still point as being out of step with this trend. But even there change is imminent. A large number of the most important American companies—General Motors, Ford, IBM and others—have announced their support for the programme, presented to Congress in August 1971. General Motors has already said that its new developments will be metric from the outset. Once the United States changes, then almost the whole of world trade will be conducted in metric units.
It is worth reminding the House that the only countries that have still to announce plans to change are Brunei, Burma, Liberia, Nauru, Sierra Leone, Tonga, Western Samoa, Yemen Arab Republic and, last but not least, the Yemen People's Democratic Republic.
Against this background, from the point of view of the trade and industry on which the people of this country depend, the only question that really ought to come to mind is how much longer we can sensibly remain out of step. This is the background against which large sectors of British industry have worked out their programmes of change, and are indeed well on the way to implementing them.
A recent survey of engineering production showed that less than a fifth of firms are still working entirely in imperial units. The construction industry's changeover programme is well on the way to completion. The change over to metric tariffs for overseas freight is the way to completion. The changeover of inland freight is well under way. The parcel and letter postal services will have metric charges in 1975. The energy sector has a programme for the metrication of sales covering the period March 1974 to April 1975. This does not, how-

ever, include retail sales of coal and of fuels for motorists. We have for many years bought our electricity in metric units. The programme for agriculture and horticulture is centred on the farm year 1975/76.
Textile fabrics will be made in metric from 1st January next year and practically all clothing will be dual marked, that is to say in centimetres and inches, by June 1974.
There can be no doubt that this pattern of change has brought, and will bring, real benefit to the trading prospects of British industry.
I should like to quote two examples of experience which has been gained. British Insulated Callender's Cables Ltd. said of metrication:
The overall benefit to customers was a price saving of about 5 per cent.".
Ford Motor Company said of it:
The advantages we expected from the metric change have been exceeded by a very great deal.
This is the background against which some spokesmen of industry have sought to criticise Government for lack of leadership in the metrication programme. I confess that I regard this charge as one that the Government are well able to rebut. We have always made clear that progress towards metrication is voluntary. The Government have, however, supported—and will continue to support the work of the Metrication Board in helping industry with the process of change. It is with the help of the board and I wish to pay tribute to the painstaking work that has been done by each and every member of the board under the chairmanship of our former colleague, Lord Orr-Ewing and of his predecessor Lord Ritchie-Calder—that industry has been able to work out and carry through the important changes that have been made. That is why, for example, the Government have been and remain at pains to adjust their own policy for public purchasing in line with the programmes that industry itself finds acceptable.
I recognise that there is some legislation which prescribes imperial units for various purposes, and that some of this inhibits changes by industry. Where this is the case the Government Department responsible for the legislation has been, and will always be, very ready to discuss


with the industry the changes which will be necessary, and—this is an equally important point—their timing to ensure that the industry's own metrication programme is taken fully into account. It is upon that basis that those firms which have been waiting to make the change should approach the matter, bearing in mind, indeed, as the CBI has argued, the best interests of this country's commercial future.
I turn to the problems of metrication from the point of view of the consumer, of each one of us about our ordinary business in the shops. It has always been clear that the process of change can involve problems from the point of view of the ordinary retail customer. But despite these problems, there are many who believe that they need not stand in the way of change. The consumer organisations are prepared not merely to accept the prospect of change but to urge, as one of them did in a letter to me at the end of last week, that the process of change should not be unduly prolonged. Educationists have, for the most part, positively welcomed the change, because there is no doubt that there are attractions from the point of view of the schoolboy or schoolgirl at his or her desk in having to accommodate himself or herself to a single system of calculations rather than to two. The dismal decimal point can be seen from their point of view as an agent of simplification.
Even so, it is argued that those opinions are not representative of the total mass of public opinion. Some argue that for this reason trade at the retail level need not follow a general metric change in industry. But the truth is that metrication cannot stop at the factory gate. It is not practicable to confine metrication to some aspects of life while others remain entirely imperial.
Living with two systems of measurement would become increasingly confusing and costly. If both systems continued to be used, many of the benefits that can be obtained from metrication would he lost, for the goods produced by industry for the market at home as well as abroad enter into daily life. The ordinary citizen is, therefore, involved. His position in a progressively metric environment would be difficult, to say the least, if he had to keep switching from one system

of measurement to another in each of his activities. That situation could be even more difficult for the retailer with the problems of purchasing, stock control and pricing.
But the ordinary citizen is clearly en-entitled to be assured that the change takes place only to the extent that it is necessary, only in a way which he or she can understand, and only in a way which will inform him as to the way in which it is taking place. This underlines the importance of the information which the Metrication Board has been providing and will continue to provide.
It is important to understand just how far the change has to take place, as far as the ordinary consumer is concerned, and at what speed. It is important, too, for the consumer to understand that the change can bring positive benefits.
This is the point at which I should explain to the House the extent to which the pace and style of change—but not, I emphasise, the fact of change—is affected by our accession to the European Communities. When we were negotiating to join the Community there was an important directive on Unit of Measurement that had already been adopted by the Six. Naturally that took the use of metric units for granted. But we negotiated that the future of imperial units would be considered by the member States after our accession. So far as there was not agreement in relation to this, we had full authority to retain them until the end of 1979, and beyond that by further agreement.
By late 1976. however, we have undertaken not to discriminate against the use of metric units. This will mean that we shall need to lay some orders under our Weights and Measures Act to permit —I emphasise the word "permit"—goods to be sold in metric units. If our consumers are to receive the extended range of choice that comes from membership of a unified European market, it makes good sense for us to take account of this.
Those are the reasons why we have thought it right that the whole of this process of change should be studied in the interests of the consumer, by people who can see the practical view of the implications of the change.

Mr. John Page: I have been listening to what my right hon.


and learned Friend has been saying on the important point about accession to the EEC. He said that there must be no discrimination against goods sold in metric measurements by 1976. Does that include the range of goods covered by the Weights and Measures Act 1963?

Sir G. Howe: As a general proposition, it includes them, save in so far as there have been exceptions negotiated until 1979. I emphasise again the word "permit". It is to permit the circulation of goods sold in metric units. That is the obligation—and only that—which arises in 1976. But one would then create a situation in which metric and non-metric units would be alongside each other.

Mr. Page: I was afraid that that was what my right hon. and learned Friend meant.

Sir G. Howe: This is one of the reasons why the Government have thought it right that the whole of this problem should be studied very closely in the interests of the consumer. It is one of the reasons why we secured the appointment of the Metrication Board's Consumer Safeguards Group, and it is why we are paying the closest attention to the report of that group which was published earlier this summer. The Government attach the highest importance to the way in which and the speed at which the change takes place. The Government are determined to see that the consumer is not taken for a ride.

Mr. J. C. Jennings: May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend a simple, straightforward question? What parliamentary enactment would make metrication legal?

Sir G. Howe: It was made legal 76 years ago by the Weights and Measures (Metric System) Act 1897. That made it clear that both metric and imperial measurements and units were equally permitted to be used for trade. That was confirmed by the Weights and Measures Act 1963. There is and has been for many years no need whatever for express authority from Government or Parliament for an industry to discontinue the use of the imperial system and adopt the units of the metric system, which are also set out in the Act.
This is the permissive position as it stands at present. I shall deal in a little more detail with certain prescribed quantity commodities shortly.
Those who have considered the problem so far—the pattern and timing of the change—bodies such as the Consumers Association, alongside the Consumer Safeguard Group, all favour and recommend a quick change-over in relation to the entire range of commodities. But we recognise that some others suggest that some consumers, especially no doubt the older members of our society, would prefer a long transition period. That is the complex problem which is no doubt in the mind of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page). One can see advantages both ways, in having only one standard range of sizes in current use or, on the other hand, retaining two standards alongside each other, with the risk of confusion if both systems operated alongside each other during an extended period.
But these are complex problems on which the Government, and all those concerned, would certainly welcome the views of the House. They are complex problems which lead me to recognise the extent to which the role of the Metrication Board is changing over the passage of time, because, as industrial aspects of change have been completed, so it is that the consumer aspects become the more significant.
With that in mind I have made the following appointments to the Metrication Board: first, Mr. David Hobman, Director of Age Concern; secondly, Mrs. Janet Upward, Secretary of the National Federation of Consumer Groups. In addition, the House would like to know that I am appointing to the board Mr. Brian Baxter, Director of Yarrow and Company, and Mr. Hugh Scanlon, the President of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers.

Mr. John Page: Now we shall get a fair deal.

Sir G. Howe: Probably the most important subject touching the consumer is that to which I have already referred briefly, namely that of prescribed quantities. This is the system by means of which certain goods are marked in


uniform weights and measurements. It is a system on which I have answered questions from a number of my hon. Friends from time to time and I know that some of them wish to see it extended.
It is important that the benefit conferred by this system should be preserved. It is, therefore, important that the replacement of imperial prescribed quantities should take place on the basis of a considered and comprehensible programme. The Government have it in mind to make changes in the prescribed quantities system gradually and in a way to which the consumer can accustom herself. [An HON. MEMBER: "When?"] I will come to that in a moment.
There is one commodity above all others about which all hon. Members will be concerned, namely the pint of draught beer. By no stretch of the imagination is this an item of international trade and, as far as I can see, we shall be calling for a pint for many years to come.
I have had discussions with the food industry and I hope, in the next few weeks, to advertise certain draft orders under the Weights and Measures Act which would provide for the sale of some of these foodstuffs in metric units.

Mr. Alan Williams: I note that the pint of beer is to be preserved. Is the pint of milk to be given the same privilege?

Sir G. Howe: The pint of milk is not outside international trade to the same extent as the pint of beer, although it is largely so, and the Government have at present no plans for changing from imperial units for the sale of milk. But I should not like to convey the impression that milk is in the same category as a pint of beer.

Mr. John Page: I wish to raise an important point regarding draught beer. In paragraph 15 of the White Paper it is stated:
…but equally if anyone wants to buy it by the litre or half-litre that too should be lawful.
That means that a brewery or public house could sell beer only by the litre, and so push the litre. Does my right hon. and learned Friend feel that it is desirable for the two units, a pint and a litre to be sold side by side?

Sir G. Howe: This goes back to the point I touched on about the extent to which we must be careful about the way in which metric units are used alongside non-metric units. I should be interested to hear the views of my hon. Friend and others regarding beer and other products concurrently used in different measures. There is much to be said for separate retail outlets, one metric and the other non-metric or, at least in relation to products other than beer, separately identified places for the sale of non-metric and metric products. But for beer the case for separation is even stronger.
I have told the House that I intend in the next few weeks to advertise draft orders which will provide for the sale of some foodstuffs in metric units. At present I have in mind two modest commodities, salt and pasta and perhaps one or two others. Other more important commodities will follow in, I hope, an orderly fashion. These orders and their timing will be tailored to the particular needs of the industry and of the consumer. Depending on the reaction of the trade and of consumer interests whom I shall consult, I hope to make the first of the orders, relating to salt and pasta, which will be subject to affirmative resolution, before the end of this Session. The actual changes will take effect later.
I realise that, even with this carefully controlled process, the consumer needs to be assured about the impact on prices. This is why the careful presentation of the facts and information will be essential and this is why we see a valuable role in certain limited cases for the concept of unit pricing. The information will need to be presented in general terms as well as in relation to particular cases through all the media, as well as at the point of sale.
Some manufacturers have already offered to put on the pack in which their products are sold, well before the change over date for their products, information to help the consumer to familiarise herself with the new pack sizes and to continue to be able to choose the best buy for her family. I welcome these efforts, and will give further careful consideration to any other measures which may be suggested to help to meet anxiety on this score.

Mr. John Gorst: Has is been possible to make any estimate of the cost likely to be faced by the consumer in terms solely of food prices as a result of going metric? I am sure that, if my right hon. and learned Friend has seen the table in the consumer booklet which all hon. Members have received, he will realise that, in any rounding, prices will be rounded up rather than down.

Sir G. Howe: It does not follow that all rounding would be towards a higher quantity but I take the point underlying my hon. Friend's question—that the half-kilogram, for example is, broadly speaking, 10 per cent. larger than the pound —but it does not follow that rounding up to a larger unit would mean a higher price per unit. That may be one of the important elements underlying unit prices.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: In view of the sad accident by which the Weights and Measures (Unit Pricing) Bill was blocked last Friday by an hon. Member objecting to it and not knowing that he was objecting to it, and regretting it afterwards, will my right hon. and learned Friend give an assurance that he will do all he can to ensure that the Bill is put on the Order Paper before the end of the Session, as it has already gone through Committee?

Sir G. Howe: My hon. Friend knows that matters of that sort are for the Leader of the House. I will see that the matter is drawn to his attention.
We have already moved a considerable way down the road towards metrication. Industry has already changed over to a considerable extent. It is important for our trade in the modern world, in this increasingly metric world in which we live, that industry should change in this way. Agriculture has a programme which should be completed by 1975–76. Our children, or the great majority of them, are now taught the metric system, which they find simpler than the measures with which most of us grew up.
We are now about to make moves affecting consumer goods. I have explained the reasons for this and I repeat the assurance which I have already given to the House. We shall take closely into account the views which will be expressed in the House and by outside interests.

Mr. Eric S. Heifer: The Minister said that the affirmative resolutions to which he referred will come before the House before the end of the Session. Does he mean that these resolutions will be brought before the House before the Session starting in October or November?

Sir G. Howe: That is the expectation.
I am referring to the particular commodities which I mentioned because the House will appreciate the importance of the matter being approached in a rational and orderly fashion. That is why I have identified those commodities for which orders will come before the House before the end of the Session. We shall take close account of the views inside and outside the House, because we are determined to see that the changes are brought into effect in a manner which fully informs, and, as far as is possible, protects, the consumer.

4.39 p.m.

Mr. Roger White: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend for the way in which he opened the debate. He said it was a non-party issue. The last debate on metrication, on 27th October 1970, was also on a nonparty issue. My right hon. and learned Friend has given lists of imposing supporters for metrication. He has now included in the list some of our friends across the Atlantic in the United States. But we are far more interested in this Chamber about the measures he announced concerning consumers in this country. I welcome the additional members to the Metrication Board.
The debate on 27th October 1970 was a memorable occasion for many of my hon. Friends and myself, because it was the first time that we had had an opportunity to address the House of Commons. We expressed, and I believe we were right, cur concern about the rise in costs to the consumer right across the board. At that time we knew that industry —I am thinking particularly of the civil engineering and construction industries—. had gone a long way towards metrication.
However, it became clear in the debate that in many instances we had already reached the stage of no return. At the same time we expressed the cost in real terms. I believe that £5,000 million was quoted as the estimated figure in 1968.
Frankly, I should like to know a lot more than I have learned from the White Paper or the Metrication Board on the exact cost of this exercise.
Since that time we have had a number of publications, including the White Paper of February 1972. Indeed, the Metrication Board has published seven quarterly bulletins under the title, "Going Metric", and we have had numerous leaflets and guides of many kinds, culminating with the board's report for 1972, under the chairmanship of Lord Orr-Ewing, published this year.
I believe that it is right that we should be reminded of the words of my right hon. Friend the then Minister for Housing and Construction in the debate on 27th October 1970. He said:
I have made it plain, as did my hon. Friend in opening the debate, that we favour going forward towards voluntary metrication. I have tried to make it plain that we are opposed to compulsion in any respect. I have explained that there would have to be amending and enabling legislation if we were to go very much further down this road, otherwise the whole variety of weights and measures which are now statutorily regulated in imperial terms could not be paralleled by similar metric measures."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th October 1970; Vol. 805, c. 166.]
I believe that was an important assurance. So did many of my hon. Friends.
During the debate I mentioned the word "stealth". I believed at that time that we were having metrication by stealth. I am pleased to see in Chapter I of the White Paper that the reference to stealth has been quoted. Indeed, on page 2 it states:
So there can be absolutely no question of ' metrication by stealth"".
That is all very well until we get to page 7 where it states:
The Government in any case regard it as most desirable in the interests of our economic prosperity that the maximum practical progress towards the metric system should be made within the next few years.
I suppose it depends on one's personal interpretation whether we are going to progress or achieve an objective by stealth or otherwise. None the less, it seems that we are heading for metrication in all its forms, and there is ample evidence in the White Paper, particularly in education. The metric system will be employed to such an extent that future generations will have no option available to them other than the metric system.

Sir John Hall: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Schools Council has made it clear that from 1974 onwards examinations will be set only in the metric system and using the international unit?

Mr. White: I certainly acknowledge my hon. Friend's intervention. Indeed, the Kent County Council Education Authority, in its publication "Metrication No. 1", which deals with the teachers' digest of decimal currency, and "Metrication No. 2", which introduced SI units, went as far back as October 1969. So there is no doubt that metrication in schools was to be made very clear to the country in future. Metrication has certainly gone unabated in the schools in my constituency.
Whilst I appreciate what is set out in the White Paper, there are in many respects ample grounds for confirming some of the thoughts and fears that were expressed in the original debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) referred to beer, cider and milk. Those items are dealt with in the White Paper. The White Paper, in Chapter VI,
The Effects of Metrication on the Consumer",
acknowledges that while there are no restrictions on the quantity of liquids or the manner of their sale, they can be sold in either litres or half-litres alongside traditional pints. If future generations are to learn only the metric system it will be interesting to see where they stand at the bar in another 15 or 20 years. This point is reinforced in other parts of the White Paper.
Another area in the 1970 debate related to transport. Both in the Adjournment debate of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West on 8th July 1970 and in the debate on 27th October, I drew attention to the changes in speed limit signs on our roads. Hey Presto! on page 26, paragraph 107, of the White Paper we have a reference to this point. I certainly welcome the assurance given in the White Paper that there is no reason why we should automatically move to kilometre signs on our roads, and so forth. I am a little suspicious. Does anyone suggest that the skirt has not already been lifted?
In reply to the debate on 27th October much was said about "M day". I recall the late Captain Henry Kirby, when he talked about decimalisation, describing it as funny money ". I should not like to think that we would go ahead with what might be described as muddled measurements. Certainly we can accept that industry has its part to play in terms of metric measurement. I acknowledge the necessity in many ways, through our entry into the EEC, of accepting metrication, but I am opposed to having it forced down our throats through either the Metrication Board or other means until we have had sufficient opportunity to study it far more closely.

Mr. Gorst: I have not followed one of the hon. Gentleman's points, which seems to run through his speech. Is he suggesting that metrication is being brought in by stealth? If he is, I draw to his attention that in its annual report the Metrication Board not only listed the many measures it was taking to publicise what it was doing but also called for a much expanded expenditure on publicity.

Mr. White: I do not question the activities of the Metrication Board, and of course I acknowledge the words of my hon. Friend. I quoted the example of education, where I believe that metrication has overtaken the country by stealth.
It may be a play on words. It is one of the fears that I expressed in October 1970 and again this afternoon.

Sir John Hall: Would not my hon. Friend agree that metrication has been introduced without the consent of Parliament in those areas where its consent is needed?

Mr. White: That is one of the reasons why I welcome today's debate. This is only the second time since 1970 that the House has had an opportunity to discuss metrication. While it is true that the Metrication Board produces excellent documents—I suggest at some considerable cost—which we hope industry and others will read, I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's desire to strengthen the report so that the consumer can understand it, too.
Finally, while we are prepared to understand and examine the Metrication

Board's reports, we none the less expect the Government to provide Parliament with more information than they have given hitherto. Three years is far too long for Parliament to decide an issue of such importance not only to the present generation, but to the future.

4.50 p.m.

Mr. Angus Maude: My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Roger White) was, if anything, too kind and moderate about the situation which has arisen. It is time that as a House of Commons we analysed just what kind of situation we have been brought into.
It is freely said by interested parties that the policy of metrication has been accepted and agreed by Parliament. It never has. The start of the process was in 1965 under the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn). At the beginning of this Parliament the Government gave it a kind of tacit approval, but they never brought it to Parliament for approval, and they never have.
It is as well to remember that in October 1970 all the Government did, as they have again today, was to bring up the subject of metrication for debate on the Adjournment. Even then the Minister winding up for the Government had to back-pedal pretty smartish under pressure from my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) in order to avoid a Division which the Government knew they would have lost.
Now, two years before the end of the 10-year period which was supposed to have seen metrication completed, why do not the Government bring the policy of metrication as a whole to Parliament for approval? Why have they not brought the White Paper to Parliament for approval? Why are we not debating today, or why have we not debated earlier, a motion, "That this House approves the White Paper on Metrication?" Does anyone doubt that it is because the Government know that nine-tenths of the people of this country are against metrication? In every debate we have had the majority of speeches have been against it. They would be lucky to get such a motion accepted.
That is what we mean by saying that metrication has been proceeding, and is proceeding, by stealth. It is clear what


the Government are trying to do: they are postponing a decision for as long as they can while more and more the process of metrication goes ahead, so that the time will come when Parliament will be faced with a fait accompli and it will not be worth standing up against the completion of the process in any detail.
One could go back and show how the process has been going on. We are told that the construction industries have virtually completed the programme, except for small firms, and we are given to understand by implication that it was done voluntarily by the construction industries, the architects, timber merchants and so on. It is true that their so-called representative bodies gave a kind of approval to this process, and some of the larger firms in the industry have enthusiastically supported it—as large firms always support changes of this kind out of which they tend to make a great deal of money—but the smaller building firms and most practising architects were against it. Many of them are still, partly on the grounds of the increased cost of repairs and alterations to existing houses.
It was the Government which by stealth forced this change upon the construction industry by making it a condition of public tendering for the enormous proportion of construction work which was Government originated that tenders should be in metric. It is no good pretending that the Government did not force this on an industry which, if it had been given a chance to vote on it, would not have accepted it.

Mr. Gorst: Is my hon. Friend arguing that by Government diktat the process should be reversed?

Mr. Maude: If my hon. Friend will allow me to make my speech he will find that I shall answer that question, but I shall come to it in my own time.
The other way in which this process has been taking place by stealth and, as one can tell from the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend, is to be continued by stealth. is that the safeguards are to be gradually nibbled away one by one until it is possible to say that over an increasing area metrication is accepted and that so little is left that it is hardly worth complaining about it.
I can understand the frustration, indeed fury, of the Metrication Board over the mess it has been landed in. The board thought that it had a mandate to complete the process of metrication by 1975. I suspect that it thought that the Government were enthusiastically intending to pursue that policy. Not only is the Metrication Board frustrated, but the CBI is issuing statements calling upon the Government to pull their finger out smartly and to get the thing done in the proper time.
If the Government are determined to complete the process of metrication, why cannot they now be honest enough to come to the House and ask it to approve a change in the prescribed quantity legislation for essential foodstuffs? Again, we know the answer. They dare not, because they do not believe that the people would support them, and they do not believe that they could get it through the House. They propose to produce a gradual succession of orders, starting with salt and something which I did not hear.

Mr. John Page: Pasta.

Mr. Maude: No doubt creeping up gradually until they get to essential things such as sugar, butter and the other staple foodstuffs used by the housewife. One can proceed in this way if one thinks that it is an honest way to proceed, but the Government should not imagine that it will be popular.
I do not suppose any hon. Member doubts that the changeover to decimalisation was wildly inflationary in its effect.

Mr. Wilfred Proudfoot: No.

Mr. Maude: If my hon. Friend believes that, he will believe anything. Although I am not suggesting that the possibilities of fiddling in the change to metrication are as great as they were in the change to decimalisation, they are there. Even if it were possible—I do not believe that it is—for the Government, the Metrication Board, the consumer associations and the rest to safeguard the consumer and to keep an eagle eye on every change, the people will not believe that there are not opportunities for fiddling. Psychologically, at a time when inflation is by far the greatest political problem facing the Government, and in terms of living standards facing the


people, it will be folly to make the change.
Far from proceeding in this piecemeal way, hoping to get away with it bit by bit, I believe that the only honest thing the Government can now do is either to take one bite at the cherry if they think they can get it through the House of Commons, or, if they do not think that they can, to state quite clearly that there will be no change in the legislation relating to prescribed quantities of essential foodstuffs within the next five years. If the Government were to say that, the doubts of which the CBI and the food manufacturing industries are complaining would disappear. No doubt it will be inconvenient for a lot of people. A number of people, who have relied on this to make a great deal of money, will be disappointed. However, at least it will safeguard the interests of the housewife.
In my view, it will be politically highly advantageous to the Government to be seen and heard saying this, and they must make up their minds quickly about it. It is no good thinking it can pacify Parliament by initiating an Adjournment debate as a sop every three years and saying that the process of metrication has proceeded another 20 or 25 per cent. until, three or six years from now, during the second or third Adjournment debate, we find the process completed. It is wholly unsatisfactory.
We know it is more convenient for industry, particularly large industries which export, to produce and sell solely in metric quantities. But what we are dealing with and are here to represent is not the interests of British industry, particularly the CBI, but above all, the interests of our consuming constituents. The interests of our constituents, who are consumers, without the slighest doubt demand that they should be safeguarded at this time of inflation against the risk of the kind of metric changes which are now contemplated. I hope that the Government will come clean about this matter and not try to pull the wool over the eyes of Members of Parliament as they have been doing for the past three years.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. A. P. Costain: I heartily agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) that decimalisation has

caused an increase in prices. I hope that he will agree with me that when decimalisation was brought in hon. Members on the Government side voted for the 10s. unit. Had we had the 10s. unit, I am certain we should not have had as great a rise in the cost of living.
Only last week I asked a Question of the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the halfpenny and said what an inconvenient coin it was. Several members of the staff of the House have said what an awkward coin it is and that they never keep it in their pockets but put it in the box for the blind. This is one reason why people have ceased to understand that it has about the value of an old penny.
But we are not debating that matter today. We are debating metrication, whether we need it, what it is all about and how we can bring it about? I represent a constituency which contains a number of elderly retired people who are frightened of metrication. They do not understand it. They have reached the age at which they look upon any change of this kind as being against them. One of the most extraordinary things about metrication is that when one goes to France or any other country there is little difficulty in translating the currency and the purchasing power into kilograms and the metric system. People are on holiday, it becomes a challenge and they accept the situation and cope with it.
When we introduce metrication in this country people will not be used to it. They do not want it and they can only understand it by translating it. I cannot think in terms of centigrade and Fahrenheit. I have to convert temperature from centigrade into Fahrenheit before I know what sort of overcoat to put on.

Mr. Maude: Can my hon. Friend give any good reason why he should have to think in centigrade? We do not, after all, export thermometers.

Mr. Costain: My hon. Friend always hits the bull's eye with his interjections.

Mr. Robert Redmond: If my hon. Friend proposes to use SI units, the correct term is not centigrade but Celsius. Radio Telefis Eireann gets it right in Ireland, but the BBC, being trendy, still uses centigrade.

Mr. Costain: Yes, but I am one of those sensible chaps who proceed step by step.
Why do we need to introduce metrication? Are we just doing it to help the CBI and industry generally? I do not think that anyone, whatever his views on metrication, can deny that those countries that have not changed to metrication are few—the Yemen Republic and Libya are two of the lesser known countries. Surely we as an industrial nation do not want to follow their pattern.
Some hon. Members have said that we are changing to metrication to help the CBI. We must be realistic. This country depends on industry for its exports, so should we, in this House, make it difficult for our manufacturing industries to compete? I do not think we should.

Sir John Hall: Although there is something in what my hon. Friend says. I am sure he realises that, although about 130 countries are now on the metric system, fewer than 25 use SI unit, which is the one we shall use.

Mr. Costain: We must talk in simple terms. Do not let us make the matter more complicated.
My hon. Friend spoke about the building industry and how it was introduced to the metric system. As Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Secretary of State for the Environment, I usually cannot speak on the building industry, but I am now talking about the past. I had something to do with encouraging the building industry to introduce metrication. One of my colleagues, Ernest Cook, that year was the President of the Federation of Master Builders. He was keen on new ideas and the idea was sold to him by the Metrication Board, and because of his position, he did a tremendous amount to introduce metrication into the building industry.
The industry was encouraged by the fact that Government Departments designed in the metric system. It became almost the going thing to do. That is the problem we have to face. If the Government feel that they need to encourage metrication, surely it is not wrong for them to use their purchasing ability to encourage the use of it. The building industry went into it with a great deal of

enthusiasm seven years ago and has been extremely disappointed that more progress has not been made. Several problems have arisen, not least the difference between the metric size for nuts and bolts. Some trouble has been caused in the local ironmonger's shop by the stocking of wrong-sized bolts for nuts.
The problem is what should we do to encourage it and at the same time safeguard the interests of those who would normally purchase goods that have no real export value? My hon. Friend talked about beer. No one will alter the measurement of a pint of beer. Milk is a marginal item. My view is that the pint of milk should stay.
We cannot change over to metrication by M-day. I thoroughly disagree with the Metrication Board that we should hurry this matter. The conclusions that it puts forward are on the basis, "Let's do it quickly, it will be less painful." I do not believe that is so. The way to educate the public in the use of metrication is to have a dual system, in the same way as a country may have a dual language.
Every package should show the two types of weight. Every package should show the relative price of the two weights. That would gradually educate the public. Children are being educated in the metric system and will accept it. In 10 years' time they will talk in metric terms because it is the modern conception, and some of the children will teach their parents.
In an intervention, my hon. Friend asked "What would happen if a brewer produced litres and pints?". The litre may be found in the private bar and the pint may be found in the saloon bar.

Mr. John Page: Snobby.

Mr. Costain: My hon. Friend says, "Snobby", but that is what two languages are. Is it a crime that there should be two different measures in two different bars? As we move into the next century I am worried that we may be considered to be the odd man out. This House owes some encouragement to industry. I agree very much that we have a deep desire to ensure that our constituents, particularly the elderly ones, are not confused by this system. We must be absolutely certain that no advantage is taken of this, as was taken with the decimal system, to increase prices.
That can be done by adopting the dual system and letting it run a long time, as we have done with the thermometer. I do not take any point about the fact that we do not export thermometers. We are beginning to be educated in understanding the system. There must be a great deal more publicity. We must have scales whereby the two systems can be easily recognised. I do not think people of my generation will ever be completely converted, but I do not see why it should be made so impossible for our children to keep up with the modern trends.

5.10 p.m.

Mr. Edward Taylor: Although one may agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. A. P. Costain) that it is generally a step forward to go metric, or, if one takes the view of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) that perhaps it is not, the one thing on which everyone will agree is that the metrication story is a lesson on how not to take decisions.
After the television programme last night, to those who still believe that Parliament has a role in taking decisions it may come as a shock to realise that Parliament has never debated metrication fully in the sense of making a decision and has never decided to impose metrication. No metrication Bill has ever clogged up our programme, as did the Industrial Relations Bill. No White Paper has been submitted for a positive decision. Until today, we have only had one full-scale debate on metrication—on 27th October 1970.
I have referred to the HANSARD report of that debate when I was present. It is significant that of the 11 back bench Members who took part, only one, the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) voiced any enthusiasm for the change. Many of us remember, almost with relish, the brilliant way in which the hon. Member for Working (Mr. Onslow) now a Minister in the Department of Trade and Industry, caught the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) in the middle of a eulogy on how all civilised forward-looking men were going metric, by asking him the simple question, "How tall are you?"
However, in this debate we have made some progress. The speech by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for

Trade and Consumer Affairs calls for immediate clarification on two crucial points. My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon rightly says that the important decision we must make is whether we introduce legislation to change the rules on prescribed quantities, on the measures for tea, coffee, flour and cocoa, commodities which must be sold under our present law in prescribed quantities of 6 ozs., 12 ozs., or pounds.
My hon. Friend suggested that we leave those quantities alone for five years, but the Minister clearly said that under the rules which we have now accepted in the Common Market, we can carry on with imperial units only until 1979 and then request permission for them to be continued. But for prescribed quantities there are rules against which we must not discriminate the sale of foodstuffs in metric units in the year 1976.
Parliament and the people are entitled to know, if we cannot decide on this in Parliament, what the scope is for future decision-making. Is the only decision that we can make, as a Parliament, to be whether we change our prescribed quantities, that is, bring metrication into foodstuffs in the shops, in 1974, 1975 or 1976? Is this the full scope of the decision-making we are now entitled to make? We must have a clear answer.
Is Parliament still free to say that it wants to keep the Weights and Measures Acts arrangements until 1978, 1980 or 1982, or is the full scope of our decision-making only that Parliament can make a decision whether the changeover in the shops should be 1974, 1975 or 1976?
The second matter on which we must have clarification is whether the 1979 Common Market rules apply to all imperial measures. My hon. Friend raised an important question about the changeover from the mile. The White Paper was clear about that and said that the mile would continue. But we must consider whether the change must be made in 1979 or must we request permission from the Common Market to carry on after that date? If we can get answers to these two questions, it will help a great deal and the debate will be worth while. What we are entitled to know and what the country should know is whether any estimate has been made of the cost of metrication in limited known areas.
A pamphlet has been issued by the Metrication Board about the cost of going metric in which it says that it is impossible to give a figure. When a remarkably high figure was suggested in a debate in 1970, we were told that it was impossible to cost this change overall.
Replacement by metric machines might occur anyway. What we are entitled to know is what would be the cost in limited respects. For example, if we changed our speedometers and our road signs from miles to kilometres, what would be the cost of that limited change? We are entitled to make the general point, which the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon made tellingly, that there has been no great enthusiasm within industry for the change to metrication.
The CBI document, which I have read carefully, appears to say that if one is to change, if the Government are committed to metrication, we should get it over quickly. That is a separate argument from a group within industry urging a change to metrication because it will save time and money. We have seen no enthusiasm at all.
Let us consider the Government's own industries, for example, the splendid railways, which are always among scientific pioneers. When in its report for 1971 the board was pointing out how everyone was anxious to move to metrication, we had the remarkable admission from British Railways that it fully supported the plan and that its contribution would be to accept parcels in metric units, but on the strict understanding that it would probably then convert the metric weight into imperial measure and charge the customer on an imperial price scale.
The Post Office at that time made its contribution. It said that it did not want to introduce metrication to the posts for parcels and for letters, but would be glad to have post office buildings built in metric because that was Government policy. The Post Office also expressed delight at having components of its existing machines, which were imperial, put in as long as they worked. That was the full extent of the Post Office contribution.
We have the splendid example—always quoted—of the building industry.
The Government know—and my hon. Friend has emphasised this—that the building industry changed largely because of a change in purchasing. It had no option. The Government order a vast number of schools, hospitals, roads, and so on and inevitably that means change, and the Government's power here is important.
If industry is so keen, if industry sees such enormous benefits, why is not industry going ahead and effecting the change? All the indications are that unless there is a specific push, unless there is the push of Government purchasing power, unless the Government declare a whole policy, there is no great enthusiasm for this change.
A number of firms have instanced advantages which they can see in cost terms. We had the GKN example, which did not work out despite being paraded as a great example at the time. We have had Ford's recent statement. From studying these it seems to me that the full cost advantages which they are envisaging come from standardisation, not from metrication.
Has any consideration been given to the protection of the consumer when metrication is applied to spare parts and continuity of service? Three days ago, we put into our own house one of those splendid things called a kitchen fitting halfway round the kitchen. We now want to complete it because, happily, the Government's stabilisation of prices has been more successful than we thought. We expected prices to go up shortly. My wife and I went into Bow's emporium in High Street, Glasgow on Saturday—a real shop, real people—and we said that we wanted to complete the fitting of our kitchen. We were told, "We are very sorry, Mr. Taylor, the firm has stopped making these because it is changing to metric units. You will not be able to get anything for two months and even then we cannot guarantee that they will fit because they may well be a different size." I asked whether the firm would complete production of the old line and the reply was that the line was being discontinued. This is an example of what happened to me in a Glasgow shop, and the salesman will be only too glad to confirm this.
I am a consumer, and I suggest that similar things could happen to many


other people. It was going to happen to the Post Office, because it said that it would be glad to take spare parts for the machine in metric so long as they fitted. The point is, however, that they may not fit. If we are to protect the consumer, it is crucial that someone should investigate what will happen to consumers who want spare parts or modifications and alterations.
Will my hon. Friend take steps to ensure that, if we have to bring metric units to the shops for tea, flour, coffee and all standard foodstuffs, because the Common Market wishes us to do so, whether we like it or not, in 1976, we choose a time when prices are relatively stable?
We must remember that prices rise and fall because of the rise and fall of world food prices, as we are sometimes told, or because the trade unions have been greedy with wages, or because the employers are taking excessive profits, or for other reasons. If we are to ask consumers, particularly elderly consumers, to safeguard themselves against an escalation of prices in metrication, the only possibility of doing this is if one has the changeover at a time when food prices are reasonably stable.
I suggest to the Government, therefore, that if we are to have this change to standard quantities it should be on a day, within a short period, when we are not experiencing an escalation of food prices. I believe that we have made a mistake in not debating this matter at greater length in Parliament and not making a decision. If we are to drive ahead, however, let us ensure that we can take all possible steps to protect consumers from something which will be unpleasant and expensive for them, and something which I believe should be left to the individual decision of individual industries depending on their assessment of the market and exports.

5.23 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: I would not necessarily endorse the concluding sentiments of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor), although I find myself in agreement with much of what he said. My feelings are with those who oppose this change. I believe that if we allow those feelings to rule our heads, however,

we are being less than wise. We are meeting under the dismal shadow of decimalisation, and it is beyond doubt that decimalisation contributed significantly towards inflation. It contributed more than anything else, because it destroyed our sense of the value of money. This was largely because of the ridiculous unit that was chosen. Had we chosen the 10s. unit I am certain that many of the problems that confront us today would not do so.
I do not believe that I am duller than most people when I go shopping, but I still instinctively think of 30p being 2s.6d., of 40p being 3s.4d., and 60p being 5s. I cannot help it and most people are the same. That situation has been capitalised on by many people and has certainly led to more increases in prices than any other single factor.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Except the Common Market.

Mr. Cormack: I will not be drawn by the hon. Gentleman on that issue, because we are not debating the Common Market.
The 2½p packet of potato crisps-6d. for a packet of potato crisps—illustrates in a nutshell, if I may use an inexact metaphor, what I am talking about. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend and my hon. Friend on the Front Bench will have taken the message that we must not make this mistake again.
I believe that a ghastly mistake was perpetrated. In a sense, if one wanted to be political, one could say that the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) was the father of inflation. Nevertheless, the fact remains that we should be acting like a lot of Mrs. Partingtons, trying to brush back the sea with our mops, if we pretended today that we could prevent metrication. We cannot prevent it, and in the context of the Common Market—I will refer to it—which for good or for ill we are in, we must endeavour to obtain the maximum advantages from our entry.
I know that my hon. Friend, the Member for Cathcart, whose views I respect more than almost anybody's in the House on this matter, is above all a realist. If we are to work within the Community, if we are to have all the benefits that I believe membership can bring, the benefits that are potentially ours, then metrication is something that we must have.

Mr. Redmond: Has my hon. Friend seen the circular issued on 26th June by the Food Manufacturers' Federation Incorporated? That federation warns us of the dangers of rushing into metrication until the harmonisation within the Common Market is sorted out. In other words it is saying, "For heaven's sake, do not make standard packs now, until we know what we are going to do." We do not want two reorganisations of packaging.

Mr. Cormack: I have not read that circular. I should like to see it. Perhaps it has been sent to me among the mass of material sent to all of us during the last few days.
Naturally, I do not advocate a transition tomorrow. I am trying to be realistic. I acknowledge what I believe to be the facts. It is to our advantage to ensure that the matter is managed properly. All the consumer organisations, without exception, I believe—we have had letters from many recently—believe that it is to our advantage.
I do not wish to bore the House with a lot of quotations, but bodies such as the National Federation of Women's Institutes and the National Council of Women have said that this should happen. I make one quotation:
Women will cope with the new measures admirably and will appreciate the simplicity it will bring
We should not treat our housewives as a lot of mugs. At the same time we should give them every possible help and assistance. We should make sure that transitions are properly timed, and in that respect I endorse what my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Cathcart and for Bolton, West (Mr. Redmond) said.
I do not relish the thought of hectares and vanishing miles, and still less the disappearance of the pint. If it were to be replaced by the litre in the lounge bar in Folkestone, the incidence of drunkenness in that fair city would no doubt mount overnight. Although I do not relish those things, in the ordinary household commodities our housewives must become used as quickly as possible to the fact that metrication will come.
Generations of school children are being prepared now to go out into a metric world, into a European metric world. It is not for us to wish that that might not happen. We may have

our doubts. Our elder citizens may regret it, deplore it, and think nostalgically of the days of their youth. But if Britain is to make a success of its European adventure, it is essential that our young people should be educated in this way. It is nonsense to try to create a situation in the future whereby they will not be able to practise what they have learned.
On the question of assistance, I blatantly admit that what I want to refer to is special pleading. This is the subject of unit pricing of which my right hon. and learned Friend made passing mention in his introductory speech. I have never claimed, nor do I claim now, that this is a panacea for all ills and that this will make metrication immediately intelligible to every housewife in the land. That would be nonsense. But it is a small, significant measure that could help enormously. It has been recognised as such both in the document which has already been referred to and by the Consumers' Association which wrote to me on the subject on Friday last week and said:
We hope that the Unit Pricing Bill will be completed since we believe that this could be a most useful piece of legislation during metrication.
On Friday the House of Commons made a bit of an ass of itself—I am glad to see the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams) smiling and nodding. The Bill, which went through Committee last year, ran out of time and did not have full Government blessing and support, this year went through Committee with full Government blessing. On Friday on Report and Third Reading it was ready to go through. Owing to the excessive zeal of an hon. Friend who thought he was objecting to something else, the Bill was blocked.
That illustrates the nonsense of our procedure with Private Members' Bills. But that is another subject which has been admirably touched on this morning in The Times by the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton)—[Interruplion.] I will have my say. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) had his say yesterday. He will have it again today. He cannot repeat his record of last year of speaking five times in five days. The Bill can get on to the Statute Book if time is made available, if seconds can be made available, when we


return in October. I sincerely hope that the Government will do that.

Mr. Russell Kerr: Were not the events of last Friday, which the hon. Gentleman so deeply deplored, brought on the Government by their own cowardice in the handling of the Bill?

Mr. Cormack: I shall not be drawn, and I would not endorse what the hon. Gentleman said. This is a small, useful measure that may help the housewife. It is up to the Government's business managers to find those few seconds of time in October to give the housewife that added help.
I shall heed the requests of my two hon. Friends who oppose metrication to give them a chance to have their say, but I believe that they are trying to turn their faces against the inevitable. We must accept it, we must use the advantages which it will bring, but we must heed the dismal lessons of decimalisation.

5.32 p.m.

Mr. Alan Williams: Sitting on the Opposition benches and listening to the debate, as I did to the debate, as I did to the previous debate in October 1970, it seems to me that much of the discontent that is expressed by Government back benches comes from the impression that the Government seek to give that they are not doing that they are doing, and that they are not doing what be compelled to do.
The Minister has stated the Government's belief that metrication is ecomically inevitable. I expressed my views on this in 1970 and stand by them now. I, too, take the view that metrication is inevitable. I defended my arguments in detail and I should like to touch on a slightly different aspect of the subject today. I believe that, because of the Government's evasion of the responsibility of stating categorically what their policy is, they are mishandling the changeover and are guaranteeing that it will not be carried out as efficiently as it should be.
As a result of the Government's prevarication, the public are getting the worst of all worlds. There is the confusion of a completely unco-ordinated drift towards metrication without the benefits that metrication could and should bring. The Consumer Council, before its demise, said

that it believed that conversion to the metric system in Britain would be an advantage to consumers. In effect, this is what the Minister said in his opening speech.
It will be hard to convince people that there are advantages for consumers in cost gains when prices are being increased on conversion and when no cost saving is being passed on. For example, the Minister referred to Ford's announcing that its savings were greater than expected. Nevertheless, the price of Ford cars is higher. In many cases industry is responsible for bad public relations.
We all know that world wool prices have risen astronomically during the past couple of years. It infuriates a housewife when she goes to buy wool for her recreational knitting, if it is recreational, to find that she can buy an old imperial skein for 96p and that if she cannot obtain that measurement she must buy the equivalent metric measurement and pay 108p, which is an extra 12 per cent. It may well be that that is purely attributable to the fact that the imperial skein is old stock.
It seems that it is bad public relations for firms to confuse the issue themselves. If there is a legitimate increase they should at least try to separate the issues so that the public might understand that metrication is not of necessity the cause of a price increase.

Mr. Maude: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the confusion and the indignation of the lady about whom he is talking will be considerably greater when, while trying to buy a dress, she discovers that her vital statistics are 90–60–85?

Mr. williams: That is so. I beleive the manufacturers, conscious of the embrassment which they may cause to some of our pleasantly endowed lady citizens, are arranging for the continuation of the old size system—namely 12, 14, 16. I assume that there are etceteras. I do not quite understand the citizens the mysteries of that system but doubt the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Sally Oppenheim) will explain these matters to us if she has the oppurtunity to do so.
It will not be absolutely necessary for the housewife fully to convert to metric measurement. She will be able to use


the old standard. The public is understandably suspicious that it will yet again be fleeced. That is understandable when we consider the record of the last few years. I do not intend to make a political point. I refer to decimalisation as an example. It must be recognised that there is responsibility on both sides. Nevertheless, for two years the public has had to put up with the fiddling associated with decimalisation.
No doubt the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Proudfoot) will make a constructive contribution should he have the opportunity to do so. We look forward to hearing from the hon. Gentleman that decimalisation did not lead to any fiddling. However, the general impression is that it did.
Then there was the first tranche of the abolition of SET. That was gobbled up by business and not passed on to the consumer. This year there was the changeover to VAT. We were told that because of the abolition of the second part of SET and the abolition of purchase tax the consumer would benefit. I believe that the consumer is now somewhat dubious about the value of such promises. With that cumulative experience it is understandable that the public is cynical when politicians say that there will be more gains from metrication.
The Government should say categorically to industry that they will not condone any price increases at the time of conversion unless those increases are attributable to metric conversion. In most cases that should not arise. It should be up to the manufacturers and to the producers to show that any price increases which take place at the time of conversion are attributable to metrication.
The public is not worried only about price increases. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) referred to the matter which I next wish to raise. I am sorry to delay the hon. Gentleman. I should not consider him to be in any way discourteous if he dashes off to post his letter. The hon. The hon. Gentleman referred to the important factor of lack of co-ordination. I came across a similar instance to that which the hon. Gentleman described. I opened a show house for my local authority.
In the house was a beautiful fitted kitchen, but the refrigerator did not fit it. That was because the kitchen units and the refrigerator happened to be one in metric measurement and the other in imperial measurement. Until producers co-ordinate their activities many more people will find similar experiences as a result of producers not working in phase.
The same type of complaint is made about beds. Beds have gone metric but bedding has not. Therefore, it is impossible to get sheets which fit properly or sheets which will stay where they are put. That is a minor irritant but such irritants are important. They help to create unnecessary confusion.
On Friday night, on a BBC programme called "Nationwide", there was an item on metrication. A check had been made on the quantities in which deodorants are supplied. It was found that they came in 28 ccs, 57 grams, 54 ccs and at 54 milligrammes. How on earth will housewife who is trying to choose between varying packs work out which is often there is confusion when the same and then in size and volume, or where there are odd multiplies such as 28 and 54. Such multiplies are not immediately close to the another. Much of the confusion which caused in unnecessary but it is deliberate. That is the infuriating features.
The cosmetic industry is probably more responsible than any other industry. It is an industry with high profit margins. Which has never encouraged a value for money approach. It should be prevented from creating deliberate confusion. In fact, that is what it is doing. That is why the Government should say that when comparable consumer goods are switched to metric measurement they should be switched in a standard unit—that is to say, weight or volume should be quoted. They should also insist that when there are differing sizes of the same product those sizes should be in easy multiples so that there can be comparison of value for money—for example 25, 50, 75 and 100. Odd figures such as 23 and 53, which do not allow direct comparison, should not be allowed. The Government could deal


with such matters to protect the consumer.
There is ample action which the Government could have taken. I suspect that they were afraid of taking such action because to do so would mean taking extra powers. To do so would mean that the Government would have to declare themselves in a way which so far they have tried to avoid. In fact, the Government have worsened the situation. They have wrecked many of industry's plans for a co-ordinated and phased changed. That is why I said that the Government have achieved the worst of all possible worlds.
Already the CBI claim that the target date has slipped by one year. That slippage will add to the cost to the consumer. The CBI in a metrication document says:
Difficulties and upsets to timetables are not always apparent to the outside observer; the sectors of industry affected so far are mainly those which produce for industrial customers. The problems therefore are largely internal to industry; the consequences are not. Costs are mounting sharply as the changeover becomes more protracted, as dual working in imperial and metric standards, dual stocking and distribution are prolonged. These increased costs are inevitably reflected in the prices of the products of British industry ultimately reaching the consumer at home and abroad; as the additional costs of metrication beyond the original estimates are unnecessary and unproductive, they are entirely inflationary.
What the CBI is saying, and this is from the memorandum which it has submitted to the Government, is that the avoidable delay which has arisen because the Government will not give a clear lead—and frankly I do not see pasta and salt as forming a clear lead—is leading to delays which in turn leads to inflation.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Peter Emery): If the hon. Gentleman's party were in power would they immediately introduce total metrication?

Mr. Williams: By the time that situation arises, and I envisage that the Government will be forced to go to the full in their parliamentary life, we shall be virtually at the point of complete metrication. No one is suggesting that all orders should be placed concurrently. That could cause disruption and it is not what industry asks for.
Examples of the confusion which has arisen in industry as a result of the break-

down of the attempts to achieve coordination abound. The CBI has told of an aluminium-making firm which has recently been forced to re-cut large quantities of new metric stock bar to imperial size at a cost of £100,000. Because suppliers were not co-ordinating their conversions adequately, stockists are unable to supply preferred metric sizes in bolts and their customers are having to use the old Whitworth stock. In another case metric consignments have had to be flown in from Belgium and in another case an entire design had to be redrawn in imperial terms. There are many more examples and no doubt the CBI will present them to the Minister.
The confusion which has arisen is avoidable but it is still spreading. The CBI says:
Many firms are therefore abandoning their original timetables and rephasing the changeover with suppliers and customers as best they can, often in isolation from other manufacturers in the same industry with whom their original plans were worked out.
It is not surprising that the CBI makes a plea that the first priority should be for the Government to act to restore confidence. It says:
Nevertheless, Ministerial statements and action, and at times the lack of them, have caused widespread doubts in industry".
The Under-Secretary would find greater support from his own back benchers if he came out clearly for one thing or another. Let us not wander through this labyrinth of confusion and inefficiency. Bear in mind that this has repercusssions which go far beyond the commercial sphere.
Our schools have already started the switch-over to metric teaching. We now have the absurd situation emerging in which children are working on the Government's original time table for conversion to metric measurements while the real world in which they have to spend their money, and order goods, will not be in phase with them. Education has been pushed ahead of the general race of metrication simply because it followed the Government's original advice.
Why have the Government let this drift to confusion take place? The answer is to be found in a maiden speech by the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Roger White) when we first debated this subject


in October 1970, when only one Government backbencher supported the Government. That led to the most peculiar speech from the then Minister for Housing and Construction who tried to look two ways at once and ended up promising a White Paper. That was October 1970. The White Paper emerged 16 months later in February 1972, stating what was already known in October 1970—that the Government were going metric.
Now in July 1973, 17 months later, we have seen no action as promised in the White Paper to ensure early completion of the move to metrication and we have seen no additional steps to protect the consumer. We have had three years of evasive and destructive inaction and at the end of that time all that we get from the Government is an Adjournment debate at the fag-end of a parliamentary Session.
The Government know very well that they do not want a debate in the middle of a busy week when the forces of their back benchers could be mobilised against them. While the Government have played politics on this issue three years have been wasted, vast programmes scrapped and investment plans frustrated.
For example, the British Sugar Corporation bought machinery to carry out metric packaging. That has been in mothballs for nearly a year because the Government will not allow the Corporation to use it. The industry has asked the Government to change the necessary Weights and Measures orders but they will not do so. Small wonder that Tate and Lyle is saying that it will not buy metric machinery until it sees the ink dry on the Secretary of State's signature on the appropriate order.
This is the type of frustration of investment that has resulted from this inaction. The Government are trying, for political reasons, to push off the day, not to avoid it altogether, of eventual implementation of metrication in the key food sectors. Why was it that the orders announced today concerned pasta and salt? The Government know very well that the food industry has said that it will take between a year and 18 months after receiving the go-ahead in the form of the necessary orders for the industry to implement the change to metric packaging.
The Government are deliberately stalling the introduction of these orders until the implementation date falls outside the last dying days of this administration. They have no intention of bringing forward key orders during the early part of next session. They intend to delay until towards the end of the Session in the hope that there will be no implementation before they go to the country.

Mr. Emery: I asked the hon. Gentleman whether, if his party were in power, they would do this immediately. He evaded the question by trying to say that it did not apply. He cannot have it both ways. He is now trying to tell us that it will soon be here.

Mr. Williams: We shall wait and see what happens and which prognostication is correct. If the Government arc to go ahead it is becoming critically important that they take strong clear action at once. The CBI has asked them to introduce the necessary Weights and Measures orders. We see that it is not be done other than in peripheral products. The CBI, the TUC and the Consumers Association have all said that they want the transition period to be as short as possible. The Government have indicated the opposite.

Mr. Heifer: Hear, hear.

Mr. Williams: My hon. Friend may say "Hear, hear" but let him bear in mind that every extra year and month during which dual standards are in operation further delays the educational benefit which the Government have alleged will follow as the result of the switch to metrication. The Government should state clearly which goods will be allowed to retain imperial measurements.
We are all delighted that there has been a reprieve for the pint of beer. The same arguments can be adduced for reprieving the pint of milk. Milk is not a matter of major international trade, and industry does not have to change over its bottling plant. The quantity merely becomes a bottle of milk as distinct from a pint of milk. No one can say that allowing milk to continue on sale in its present measures will bring down the whole edifice of metrication.
The Government could easily give an assurance on milk and could give assurances in other sectors where


metrication will go ahead. Those assurances have not come today. Industry is still waiting to know what the Government intend to do. The Government should insist that where industry goes metric it should use identifiable, manageable and intelligible units with simple mutiples so that shoppers can assess value for money. It should apply unit pricing wherever possible.
Metrication is no great mystery, although the name may not mean much to the public generally. When a housewife buys meat, vegetables or fish she buys what quantity she wants at so much per pound. That is all that unit pricing is about. It is not a cause of confusion but a help for the housewife. The Government should demand that when manufacturers are rationalising on the conversion they should keep a flexible range of products available. Great frustration and irritation has been caused, particularly in these do-it-yourself days, by restrictions in the range of sizes of tins of paint that can now be bought in shops.
The Government should scrutinise the prices on conversion to ensure that there is no increase unless it is due to conversion. Equally, savings should be passed to the consumer.
The Government must start a publicity and education campaign for consumers. In the last financial year the Metrication Board submitted to the Government an estimate in two parts for this financial year. The first part referred to a continuation of the existing publicity campaign at industrial level. The Government approved that. The second part of the estimate dealt with the start this autumn of a campaign geared to the consumer. The Government have not authorised that section. That is part of their furtive approach. They are spending money to persuade industry to go metric behind the scenes, but refusing money to the board to alert the public to the fact that metrication is taking place.
Unless the Government agree immediately to release funds, public education will be deferred at least until the end of this financial year. I suspect that the delay is being caused for the same reason as the Minister of Agriculture refused the NFU's programme to introduce metrication in agriculture by 1975.
He insisted that it be deferred until 1976. I suspect that the Government are trying to sweep the whole issue of metrication under the carpet until they have reached the other side of a General Election. It is time for the Government to come clean.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that if the Labour Party win the next General Election they will immediately move to metrication? He keeps evading the issue.

Mr. Williams: I have already indicated that we would then have a phased movement to introducing the necessary orders.

Mr. Emery: That is what we are doing.

Mr. Williams: Pasta and salt after three years do not make an impressive list. They are not convincing to industry. It is time the Government came clean with the electors and their supporters, including their supporters in the House. The Government know that they are going ahead with metrication to the fullest extent. Why will they not admit that there is no longer any such thing as voluntary metrication? The situation has advanced too far. The question is how long the process is to take and whether it is to be a co-ordinated change or an unco-ordinated shambles, which is what metrication is deteriorating into. The deliberate attempt at stealth and deception fits ill the Prime Minister's pledge at election time to give more open government.

6.2 p.m.

Mr. J. C. Jennings: When I intervened in the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs to ask what parliamentary enactment would make metrication legal, it turned out to be a crucial question. It was followed by speeches which developed the theme and which rebutted the planned and highly technical answer of my right hon. and learned Friend. In effect he said that legislation was already on the statute book which allowed a dual system to be worked. That is all well and good. But the whole purpose of metrication legislation. however it comes, is the abolition


of the imperial system and complete substitution of a metric system. Let us make no bones about that.
My first plea to the Government is to come clean. We are following in the dismal path of decimalisation. Decimalisation of money has turned out to be the biggest con trick ever perpetrated on the British public. Even those who have consistently supported it now recognise that it has been a major influence on the whole problem of inflation.
We are in similar danger when, in the most insidious manner, in two, three or more years, metrication will be brought in. How? [An HON. MEMBER: "By stealth."] I prefer to say "by insidious methods". It will be introduced in such a way that no decision is taken by the House until we are faced with a fait accompli.

Mr. Robert C. Brown (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West): It is already here.

Mr. Jennings: I disagree with people who say, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack), that metrication is unavoidable. The House is all-powerful, and the sooner it realises that, the better. If back-bench Members unite on metrication against the two Front Benches they could stop them. It is no good the Government saying that we are powerless. Why have the Government never given us a debate on metrication, followed by a vote? The answer is that they know quite well that they would be defeated and that we should get a sufficient number of Conservative back benchers to vote against them. Therefore, as happened in 1970, so today we have a nice, cosy, comfortable fireside debate for three hours with no vote at the end and no one caring two hoots about what anyone says.
I warn the Government that they have to come clean. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary can shrug his shoulders, but the people who will finally decide are the elderly who will repudiate metrication completely because they will never understand it and because they will be so unhappy and uncomfortable with it. I remind my hon. Friend that they have votes. It will be the housewives who have already learned a lesson from the introduction of decimalisation. I remind

my hon. Friend that they have votes. After all, who was it who put the Conservative Party in office at the last General Election? It was the housewife.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: And the next?

Mr. Jennings: We shall have to wait and see. But the Government have to take note of all this.
Why are we having to deal with metrication in full, which is what it will mean in the end? My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock gave the game away on two occasions in the course of his speech. I am sure that he did it quite unconsciously, but he showed a symptom of the disease when he spoke about metrication in the context of the Common Market and then, two sentences later, said that we lived in the European metric world. We hear a great deal about little Englanders. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock is a little European. He speaks of the European metric world. I remind him that others of us think of the whole world.
The real reason why metrication is essential to this Government and to a Labour Government if that party ever forms a Government again is that we are now in the Common Market and it is necessary that we conform to the standards, regulations and directives of the Commission in Brussels.

Mr. Redmond: It is outrageous to blame the Common Market. We needed to sell metric products abroad long before we ever thought of going into the Common Market.

Mr. Jennings: I My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Redmond) has such a short memory. I have such a long one, certainly in this House—

Mr. Redmond: When did you ever sell anything abroad?

Mr. Jennings: I do not sell things abroad. When did you teach any children the metric system?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): Order. It is usual in the House to address the Chair.

Mr. Jennings: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend made me angry. He knows quite well that I am neither an industrialist nor a salesman.
But I have been a teacher of children. I have probably taught them more about the metric system than my hon. Friend has ever known.
That brings me to my next point, which is that the metric system is nothing new. We have heard a great deal about schools and schoolchildren. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock said that our children were coming into a metric world. Years and years ago, when anyone picked up a ruler from a child's desk—

Mr. Robert C. Brown: It was also printed on the backs of books—

Mr. Jennings: —the ruler was made out in inches along one side and in centimetres and decimetres along the other. For years our children have been brought up from infancy with the metric system. It is nothing new. It is argued that we must bring in metrication laws because our schools are now converted to the system. They have always had it.
I represent a town which lives on its sales of beer. The pint is very important to the people of Burton. Is it not a curious facet of logic that the Government should indicate that in bringing in all these foreign measurements they propose to exclude the pint of beer? I wonder why. The answer is that the working man's pint must not be disturbed, because the working man is a powerful voter. His pint at the bar, in the snug or in the lounge must not be disturbed. Therefore, the Government say that they intend to retain the old imperial pint. However, the housewife is a voter too, and she must have her pint of milk. The two are inseparable, and, though I do not suggest that we should ever mix beer and milk, for heaven's sake let us keep them in pint measures.
Those of us who opposed the introduction of decimalisation and who oppose metrication are judged to be old, decrepit, finished, played out and antediluvian. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Proudfoot) grinning. He has used all those words to describe me. I shall not reveal what I have called him. That would be completely out of order.
Those who call us those names are wrong. We have a right to our opinions, and our hearts are not necessarily ruling our heads because some of us are very hard-headed. What is more, in a very

short while we shall be proved absolutely right about the Common Market and other associated matters.
I am not against change, but I am against change for the sake of it. We need gradual development. The final lesson that this House must learn is that for the next few years we do not want to see any more drastic changes of this description. We have had enough with decimalisation. It would be murder to bring in metrication on top of it. We need time to consolidate all the changes that we have had in the past 10 years in order to give the country a chance to settle down and to give our children, housewives and old people a chance to assimilate the changes. In that way we shall have a far more happy and prosperous Britain than we can look to under metrication.

6.14 p.m.

Mr. John Golding: I do not believe that we should be having this debate at all if the English aristocracy had not stopped Napoleon and his revolutionary army. In one sense it has been a great pity for this country that we have not gone metric many years since.
I do not agree with the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings) that our children have been taught the metric system for many years. The hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack) is right to draw attention to the difficulties that exist in our schools. Our teachers are unhappy not because they have to teach the two systems alongside each other, as the hon. Member for Burton once did, but because they are being asked to concentrate upon teaching the metric system. When we were taught both the metric system and the imperial system, for most of us it was the inside of the ruler which we came to think of and to understand. The problem today is that we are teaching our children to think metric, and it is the metric side of the ruler that they most understand. It is because of that that our teachers point out the importance of getting a decision as quickly as possible. It is because of the change of emphasis and of thinking.
If we are to have this second traumatic experience as adults, it is important that we get it over and done with as quickly as possible. The Government should proceed to metrication quickly. They should


take courage in doing that. Some of us on the Opposition side of the House believe that the Government are proceeding towards metrication but are frightened of the backlash of the electorate and of the electorate's reaction to decimalisation. We believe that the Government are proceeding towards metrication but are doing that as quietly as possible and in a way which will be ineffective and will lead to confusion.
Metrication should be entered into very rapidly. Target dates should be set now for most commodities and most goods. The transition should also be as short as possible. There should be maximum publicity to assist people in the transition.
Decimalisation has been unpopular. Many people think that a lot of twisting went along with decimalisation. Many think that small traders took advantage of decimalisation to exploit their customers. I have no doubt that this will happen with metrication as well. But that is no argument for putting off this great step. The Government will simply have to be very careful that, in spite of that disadvantage, they get as many advantages as they can.
One advantage for the housewife for the future would be to go metric in a decimal way. I see that the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Sally Oppenheim) looks surprised by that remark, but she will surely recall that the Consumers Association has suggested that we change to metric unit sizes of, for example, 125, 150 and 200 grammes. It would be wrong to translate the present imperial measures into grammes. While we are making the transition let us have a rational system of sizes to operate alongside our rational coinage. Let us make certain that when we go metric we do it as sensibly as possible.
The Consumers Association has suggested that there ought to be unit pricing in milligrammes on any carton after metrication. It would help, too, to have unit pricing in the old imperial measures as well for some time. If cartons have the new metric weights priced in decimal currency, it would help the elderly and housewives to have the price expressed in the old pounds and ounces as well. But that would be a transitional thing.
The issue of the pint of beer and the pint of milk is important. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Burton is not now present. I have wanted to ask those who say that the pint must be defended at all costs whether they have ever met a good drinker who would rather drink a pint than a pint and three-quarters. Resistance to the larger glasses would not be all that great among some of the heaviest and most regular drinkers.
Despite the electoral consequences and the backlash, the Government should take their courage in their hands and say that, unless we go metric in its entirety, we shall merely be storing up problems for the future. If we do not go metric, we shall very quickly have antiquated units of measurement the reasons for which no one will know. The only reason that one would be able to give would be that it was because the politicians were too frightened to face the public and to say that it was better to go metric entirely.
We should also go metric for horse-racing. We should abolish the mile and the furlong. I am sorry, again. that the hon. Member for Burton is not in the Chamber. He represents the area which contains the finest racecourse in England. We should go metric in horse-racing to get rid of the absurdity of having racing weights which can at present be described as wicked. If we changed the distances over which horses ran, we could change the weights at which jockeys ride. The only reason why these weights are retained, as I understand it, is so that old records can be compared.
I hope that the present Government will proceed to metrication as quickly as possible, as I hope that a Labour Government would do. I hope that it is done in a blaze of publicity and that housewives and consumers generally are protected as much as possible. We politicians should take courage and introduce a measure which we know is absolutely inevitable.

6.22 p.m.

Mr. Robert Redmond: I am grateful for the opportunity of speaking immediately after the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding), if only to say that I could not care less about the length of racecourses so long as we can keep the six-ball over in county cricket and the eight-ball over in Lancashire league cricket.

Mr. J. D. Concannon: What about the 22-yard pitch?

Mr. Redmond: Exactly. We want to keep that as well.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme took part in this debate. I was glad to see some members of the Opposition in the Chamber. This is one of the most important subjects which affect the consumer and every individual. In talking about community politics, one could also ask where the representatives of the Liberal Party are. I hope that the electorate of Ripon and Ely will note that point.
When I spoke in the debate in October 1970 I felt that I had taken part in getting the Government to publish a White Paper. That White Paper took a very long time to arrive, but when I saw it I thought that it was an excellent document. What I felt that it was saying was that we were proceeding with metrication with some caution and perspective.
It was the comedienne Eartha Kitt who used to sing a song with the words "Proceed with caution but, lover, please proceed." I thought that was the Government's attitude towards metrication.
Why has it taken all this time to have another debate, and why do not the Government seek approval for the White Paper? As the result of the Government's failure to get approval for the White Paper, those who are solidly opposed to metrication say that the whole thing is being done by stealth and without parliamentary approval. This debate will make no difference to them. The Government are therefore making a rod for their own back by not having moved a motion. This is a continual excuse provided for those who will say that Parliament has debated metrication many times. They say rightly that Acts of Parliament of 1864 and 1897—I think that those were the dates mentioned by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister—made metrication legal for most purposes.
Therefore, the result is a metric muddle which I have been complaining about for a long time. At 7 o'clock tonight—or should I say 1900 hours—the White Paper will still not be approved and Parliament will have got no further. Equally, the contents of the White Paper will be unknown and we shall lose an opportunity to wipe out so much of the muddle

which arises because the terms of the White Paper are not known.
What annoys me is that there are whizz kids going round saying that Britain is being dragged kicking and screaming into the metric system. But the vast majority of the public, particularly housewives, in their capacity as consumers do not want to know. I am not talking about their business lives.
We all know in our hearts that we adopted what is just about the wrong decimal currency. It has put up the cost of living, and now everyone suspects every change. I did not agree with those who advocated the 10-shilling unit. I was brought up to believe that if one looked after the pennies, the pounds would look after themselves, and I favoured having 100 old pennies in the pound. This would have meant no increase in the cost of living.
People will never be convinced that metrication will not raise the cost of living. I do not agree with those who talk about organisations having carried out surveys which show that there is no widespread resistance to change. It is also claimed that a large number of changes have taken place without problems. I wish some of the people who say this would come to Bolton and let me introduce them to some of the real people of this country who would say what they think about metrication.
We have been dealing in large measure with consumer aspects. I should like to deal with the industrial aspects of metrication. Not enough is said about this. There was a report the other day in the Daily Express about a firm called Brook Motors. The newspaper quoted the firm as stating:
If we had not gone metric, it would have been practically impossible to sell our motors in Europe.
That is fine. It is also common sense. Brook Motors, the Metrication Board and the Government may like to know that I was selling electrical goods in Europe long before the Metrication Board was ever thought of and before the former noble Lord the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) set up the board or thought about it.
Because I have a metric electric motor in my factory or because my wife's vacuum cleaner is driven by a metric


motor, that is no reason for me to buy petrol in litres or my sugar in kilogrammes, or measure my tyre pressures in centigrammes per centilitre, which do not mean a thing to me.
My hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings) said that he had taught more people about the metric system than I have and then he mentioned decimetres, which do not exist in SI units. We are supposed to use these units if we go metric.

Mr. Jennings: Mr. Jennings rose—

Mr. Redmond: If my hon. Friend will wait a moment, he may be able to help me.

I received a delightful letter from the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery), in which he stated: A preference is expressed for the use of units in powers of three from the base unit.
Of course everyone understands that. But it is not a preference; until the other day, I had always understood that it was the law of SI units. The system meant that measures of length went from millimetres to metres to kilometres.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) mentioned, there was in the early days of the Metrication Board a picture of a nubile young lady whose vital statistics were said to be 960–560–960. It now looks as though someone has changed all this. The Under-Secretary went on to state in his letter:
It is neither correct in terms of SI units, nor helpful in practice to seek rigidly to impose this discipline.
In other words, it seems that centimetres were out but are now in again. This means that the young lady in question must be 96–56–96, if she will admit it.
The main implication is that, unless we adopt the metric system, we will lose export orders. I do not accept this. I cannot see how I help the export trade by buying loose toffees out of a jar in 100 or 125 grammes instead of quarter pounds. The manufacturers' trade association concerned had a discussion with the Department of Trade and Industry and the Metrication Board to decide whether the standard weight of loose toffees weighed out in a shop should

be 100 grammes or 125. A toffee manufacturer in my constituency said "Stick out for 125 grammes, because if it was 100 I would sell fewer toffees".
Shirt manufacturers are now marking collars in centimetres. The other day I saw two shirts in a shop window in Bolton. Both shirts were marked "Made in England" and the sizes were 15½ in. or 39 cm. and 14½ in. or 37 cm. This suggests that 1 cm. is half an inch, which it is not. This might be near enough over the range 14½ to 15½ but what happens over the range 14 to 17, as could happen? Beside the two shirts in the shop window was a sports sweater, made in France according to the label and marked "Size 38 in.".
The most important problems will arise in food sales. Along with most hon. Members I have a copy of the report of the Consumer Safeguards Group of the Metrication Board. I wish I had time to deal with it at length but it refers to 260 organisations ranging from adhesives manufacturers to zip fastener manufacturers. Paragraph 2.6 on page 6 states:
For example, a kilogram bag of sugar will contain roughly 31 ozs more than the present 2 lb bag.
That means that the standard bag of sugar will increase in content by about 10 per cent.
Last Saturday, in a supermarket in my constituency, I checked the price of a 2-lb. bag of sugar. It was 10p. If we are to have another 10 per cent. of sugar, presumably the new bag will cost 11p. When that happens, my wife and all other wives will say that a bag of sugar has gone up by 1p. It may be claimed that people are getting more sugar but this will be no good, particularly if the housewife does not want any more sugar than 2 lb.
The report says that there may be a few cases in which the metric bags are slightly smaller than the corresponding imperial bags. I do not know what they are, because grammes usually round up to half-kilograms, but, if this happens and the price comes down, my wife and all other wives will say "We are getting less for our money".
In the present climate of opinion I suggest to the Government that they are on a hiding to nothing if they bring in the measures that have been suggested. I


referred in an intervention to a letter from the Food Manufacturers Federation. The letter makes a plea for caution and suggests that the change should not be rushed. It also suggests that the industry should wait for harmonisation in the Common Market and not bring in its own standard packs until then, and that the industry could not afford to have two changes.
As has been said today, the CBI is worried because it does not know what Government policy is. It wants to tell its members what to do. I can tell the Government what to say to the CBI and what the CBI should say to its members. I hope the Government will say that they stand by the White Paper and that industry has an important task—to consider its customers and to give them the service they want.
If there is a divergence of view between one set of customers in England and another set somewhere else, it is for industry itself to decide which group should be educated. Industry must do its own marketing and should not expect the Government to do its dirty work for it. If parliamentary authority is needed for the British Sugar Corporation to bring in kilogramme bags, let us give it the authority, but the Government should not be blamed for telling industry that it has to sell sugar in kilogramme bags instead of 2-lb. bags. This is where the whole system is going wrong; industry should be using its own initiative.
We are told that today's schoolchildren know only metric. That is poppycock. They may learn kilogrammes at school, but they learn pounds at home. Kilogrammes are something that happens at their desks; pounds are real things that their mothers are dealing with and they are handling all the time.
Some years ago I was sitting in an office in Copenhagen during a sales trip when my customer had a telephone call. After a short conversation in Danish, he put down the telephone and said "This country went metric in 1912, before my wife was born, but she has just asked me to pick up a pound of butter on the way home." For heaven's sake let us approve the White Paper and let industry get on with looking after its customers as it should.

6.35 p.m.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: I have been somewhat saddened to hear so many of my hon. Friends discussing not so much how and when we should bring in metrication, as if or if not to bring it in.
I think that in the interests of consumers it is more profitable for the House to discuss how and when because, like my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack), I believe it is inevitable, and I acknowledge that the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams) and the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) went into some detail in discussing the merits and demerits of how the transitional period should be handled.
One of the fundamental errors propagated during the debate was that our advance towards metrication was the result of our entry into the EEC. In July 1968 the Labour Government decided to accept the recommendation for the setting up of the Metrication Board quite independently of any decision to go into Europe. The right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), in what has become his characteristic role of the ostrich walking round with its own bucket of sand, said:
Any costs would have to lie where they fell. It was not a Government change, and the Government would certainly not subsidise it.
I do not think that anybody, in view of the demands that have come from both sides of the House for Government money to be spent on publicising metrication and ways in which consumers can more easily make comparisons, would agree that that would be an acceptable situation today.
I certainly join my right hon. and learned Friend in paying tribute to the Consumer Safeguard Group of the Metrication Board for the excellent report that it has put out. I think that we should pay more attention to its recommendations than possibly to some other matters. I think that the views of most consumer organisations and interested bodies coincide almost exactly with the views of Macbeth:
If it were done when 'tis done, then' there well
It were done quickly".


I am not suggesting that we are about to do a foul deed, if we are about to do it at all. I am merely saying that there is considerable apprehension and I should like to discuss one or two points that have been raised in the Consumer Safeguard Group's Report.
I am disappointed that the Unit Pricing Bill proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock has not been introduced. In its conclusions the Consumer Safeguards Group made it clear that it was highly desirable that unit pricing should be used, especially during the transitional period.
The Group also made the important point, which has been ignored by those who spoke on behalf of industry, that standardised units of weights and measures should be used by all producers of any one product, particularly during the transitional period, and that during that period the time when imperial weight comparisons are shown should be very short.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme asked whether a comparison of imperial and metric weight could be shown on the same packet. I was told, and I accept, that this would not be practicable because it would involve a proliferation of numbers after the decimal point which would be even more confusing than metric weight itself. I was not surprised that the hon. Gentleman talked about decimalisation, because when making a metric calculation one uses the decimal system.
However, it never ceases to surprise the rest of the world that we are the only country that has moved to a decimalised system of money that includes a fraction. If there is any anomaly, this is it. Metrication would provide a golden opportunity to move towards standardised or prescribed quantities which are already quite familiar to many people who have shopped in Europe, and we must recognise that many people in all walks of life now go abroad for their holidays.
One important point not mentioned by any hon. Member which I should like to bring to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend is that, whatever prescribed quantities he may have in mind for the eventual movement to

metric weights, pensioners need to buy their food in small quantities. This is very important, for example, concerning milk in litres. The prescribed quantities in the EEC allow for smaller units in most other cases.
Having accepted that it is inevitable that we shall go metric, may I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to consider doing it in two phases. First, we could go metric with regard to measurement, including liquid measurement. However, I suggest that for the second phase we have metric weight at a future date when the climate not only of opinion but of experience with prices is such that it would not be as totally unacceptable to the housewife as it is today because, with the best will in the world, this could not be achieved by this or any other Government or by manufacturers, who have no wish to swindle the public, without confusion and rounding up resulting.
I will give one example. The excellent table in the Consumer Safeguards book gives a comparison which it is suggested should be displayed on packets. For example, it compares the price of a 1 kilogramme pack with a 2 lb. pack. An interesting comparison is that a I kilogramme pack would be 10½p whereas a 2 lb. pack would be 10p. Taking that a stage further, a 500 grammes pack would be 44p and a 250 grammes pack, which is a familiar unit of weight in this country, would be 2ip. That would inevitably result in rounding up. I cannot imagine a manufacturer or retailer rounding down in that case.

Mr. Maude: I do not know whether my hon. Friend has noticed that in the other table which compares the price per pound with the price per 500 grammes, rounding up or down to the nearest half penny produces wild discrepancies in the lower-priced commodities. The differences are enormous in some of them. That cannot be considered as anything but confusing.

Mrs. Oppenheim: I have noticed this with some concern. If one goes on bringing down these kilogramme packs to 250 grammes packs one gets anomalies such as 2·125p. Will that end up as 2p or 2–1p? I do not think that anyone disputes that rounding up will take place. Therefore, we shall have to progress not down but up the road to metrication.
Therefore, I should like us to progress first towards metric measure, even including liquid measure, as long as prescribed unit quantities were small enough for pensioners. However, I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to consider postponing metric weight not for electoral or vote-catching reasons, but in the interests of consumers.—[Interruption.] I am sure that all hon. Members would agree that they are politicians, but I hope that some of us have the interests of consumers at heart as well as the catching of votes. I do not think that it is in the interests of consumers in this country to move to metric weights in the foreseeable future because it is impossible to guarantee that this could take place without rounding up, further inflation and confusion.
I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will consider the constructive arguments that have been put forward when he decides about our progress either to metric measurement or metric weight and will pay particular attention to the widespread apprehensions throughout the country which have been expressed in this Chamber today.

6.45 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Peter Emery): This has been a short debate and we have had quite a number of speeches. I congratulate hon. Members on the shortness of speeches, which has certainly helped with the debate. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) for intervening now because I know that he wished to speak, but it is right and proper in winding up the debate that I should attempt to answer as many questions as possible.
I begin with the suggestion by a number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Burton (Mr. Jennings), for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) and for Gravesend (Mr. Roger White), that the Government are trying to proceed to metrication by stealth, by pulling the wool over people's eyes or without coming clean.

I remind the House what the Government have said quite specifically. Paragraph 18 of the White Paper says: The move to metrication has been taking place over many years, but the Government believe that the time has now come when they must act to ensure the orderly completion of

the process. In doing so they will not hesitate to take whatever steps are necessary to protect the consumer during the period of changeover and to reduce to a minimum any difficulties which the introduction of the new system may cause.
At the end of paragraph 32 the White Paper continues:
The Government in any case regard it as most desirable in the interests of our economic properity that the maximum practicable progress towards the metric system should he made within the next few years.
It is not unreasonable to say that that is putting the Government position absolutely clearly, without prevarication, stealth or anything hidden.
During 1972 the Government introduced the Building Regulations 1972 which substituted metric units for imperial in almost every aspect of building. The Thermal Insulation (Industrial Buildings) Regulations 1972 did much the same. The Weights and Measures Amendment Regulations 1972 on tolerance limits for weighing machines which are recalibrated on conversion to metric units were also introduced. The School Premises (General Requirements and Standards) Regulations 1967 and the Import Duties (General) (No. 7) Order were others. These orders brought forward aspects of metrication quite openly and positively. It is a little strange that hon. Gentlemen should say that the Government have been trying to hide matters and have not been frank with the House.

Mr. Maude: Would my hon. Friend say why the Government have not asked the House to approve the White Paper?

Mr. Emery: That is a fair question. Of course the Government could have done that. But it is not every White Paper that is approved by the House. There have been a number of opportunities for metrication to be debated if hon. Members wished. While I accept that the point made by my hon. Friend is fair, it is also fair that I should make clear the number of times when the Government have made known their policy.
It is also important that we should deal specifically with the points about public sector purchasing. My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor) both suggested that the construction industry was forced to change to metrication because


of public sector purchasing policy. That is not the case, and it is right that I should say so.
The industry asked for Government support for its programme. The Government agreed to give the lead through designing new projects in metric terms. It is important to say that Government and public sector purchasing could have been used to pressurise many parts of industry into a premature change to the metric system before the optimum time for industry as a whole. The White Paper intentionally eschewed that course.
The Government's objective was and is that public sector purchasing should, save in a few exceptional cases, change over in line with industry's own progress. In our view, that is the most economical way of doing it. However, the principal obligations must rest with industry to ensure that public sector buyers are aware of industry's readiness to supply in metric.
I should like to point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Redmond) that I, too, am concerned about metrication. I was a director of an institute before I was a Minister. I know that back in 1960 the pressure from people concerned with purchasing in industry was to urge the Government to go faster for their own benefit. I want to make this quite clear: they believed that it would generally be to the advantage of industry.
Industrial stocks in Britain are already too high as a result of the duality of the imperial and the metric system. The Institute of Purchasing and Supply estimated that stocks were as much as 50 per cent. greater than those of other developed industrial countries of comparable size because of this problem. It is clear that improvements in inventory management will be of no avail and costs will be increased if dual stocks have to be held longer than necessary.
It has been suggested that industry will not benefit by turning to metrication. That has been, and is now being, contradicted by nearly every reputable expert and everybody who has studied this matter, including the Metrication Board, the CBI and many of the professional organisations.
The hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Alan Williams) suggested that we should automatically accept what the CBI says and do it immediately. That is not, has not and will not be the approach of the Government. We believe that long-term consumer protection is of major importance in metrication.

Mr. Alan Williams: Mr. Alan Williams rose—

Mr. Emery: I have only five minutes. If I have misrepresented the hon. Gentleman, I immediately withdraw.
The consumer aspect of protection must be to ensure that consumers can make comparisons, which are the most important part of shopping. Comparisons when consumers use a single system that is easily understood and accepted by most organisations are of considerable assistance to consumers.
I want to refer to some of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Sally Oppenheim). In protecting the consumer, we frequently forget the old, the blind, the deaf and other categories of disadvantaged persons who have their own special difficulties in adapting to change, as they will have with change to the metric system.
The Metrication Board, in collaboration with the voluntary bodies concerned, is working out how these people can effectively be helped. The board has stated clearly that when any special needs of each class of person have been identified it intends to share with voluntary bodies the job of developing specially designed aids to meet their needs. The small quantity argument, as put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester, is immediately accepted.
The matter of spare parts, as raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart, is not a new problem, and it is not associated only with metrication. It is associated with standardisation and rationalisation, and it has been associated with the changeover of lines from one type of production and one type of new unit to another. It is wrong to try to suggest that this is something that came about because of metrication even though in the case instanced by my hon. Friend it did. This is nothing new, and it is not a problem that can be put at the door of metrication.
The leading consumer and women's organisations recognise that the change to metrication must come. For example, the Consumer Standards Advisory Committee of the British Standards Institute said:
BSI and its Women's Advisory Committee … have consistently represented to the Government the disadvantages of living with two measurement systems for an indefinite period.
Such a permissive policy is confusing to the consumer and to the supplier, discouraging to schools and an inevitable brake on industrial progress to full metric working … the change would be of real value in the home, on the High Street and in the schools.
The committee has no doubt that women will cope with the new measures admirably and will appreciate their simplicity. That was from a woman's organisation about the way in which women will cope with this particular matter.
In conclusion, I emphasise that the Government recognise the need to strike a balance in their approach to metrication. The Government and I consider and recognise the two strident different views that have been put forward in the debate. The consumer's position must be safeguarded. In large sections of the community—they are in my own constituency just as they are in the constituency of hon. Members who have spoken—there is a natural aversion to changing from what is well known and

what has given service in the past to something new, but few people deny that the metric system, when understood and established, will be simpler for the consumer.
The Government believe that, with thorough study and preparation, the problems for the consumer in the period of transition to metric measurements can and will be overcome, and that information and education is imperative to this end. We do not believe that ensuring safeguards for the consumer is inconsistent with progress towards metrication. Education and protection can go hand in hand with a rate of advance which should be acceptable to industry generally.
The drive to get the change accepted is very much within the hands of industry. but as a background management should know that the Government are firm in their resolve that the benefits and savings brought about by a metric structure within industry should quickly accrue to enlarge our exports, to increase our competitiveness and to strengthen our efficiency. All those are necessary adjuncts to the growth that this nation needs above everything else to bring benefits to industry, to consumers and, indeed, to the nation as a whole.

Mr. Rossi: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion. by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 2

FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMISSION AND AGENCIES

Lords Amendment: No. 1, in page 3, line 29, at end insert:
(aa) include arrangements for encouraging increases in the opportunities available to women and girls for employment and training".

7.0 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The Government have reconsidered whether there should be explicit mention in the Bill of women and girls. They have accepted that there should be.
The amendment refers to women and girls in terms which are not likely to encourage any interpretation that action to help other groups is excluded. Moreover, the amendment does not confer any new power or duty on the commission but merely makes it clear and emphasises that they have the power to encourage increases in the opportunities available to women and girls for employment and training.
The House knows that legislation is being worked on in the area of sex discrimination. which has been announced in another place. I think that the amendment can make a useful contribution to further the cause of equality. In those circumstances, I should be happy to advise the House to agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Harold Walker: I shall not detain the House for more than a minute or two, but I cannot miss the opportunity of sharing the hon. Gentleman's agreement with the Lords in the amendment. I should also like to congratulate them on their good sense and ability in bringing the Government round to the paths of righteousness, because two months ago, on 23rd May, the hon.

Gentleman and his hon. Friends went into the Division Lobby against precisely such an amendment moved by the Opposition.
The more frequently that I heard Ministers agreeing with amendments from the other place, echoing the arguments that we advanced, showing their conversion on the way, the more it diminishes the prejudice that I had long entertained against the other place and their Lordships. If they continue in this way I may find myself in favour of the bicameral system.

Mr. Smith: I do not wish to rob the hon. Member of his humour. I think he will agree, if he examines the interesting debate in the House of Lords, that the emphasis on women and girls was comparatively small. There were many other elements. I concluded that the Opposition divided on the other elements, but I could be wrong. However, the Government have looked again at this matter and agree that the amendment is sensible.

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman should be grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for your choice of amendments which has provided him fortuitously with a straw at which to clutch. None the less, the Opposition warmly welcome this amendment. The hon. Gentleman is correct that it will add nothing to the powers of the commission. Of course, we accept that, but the important thing is that it will make the will of Parliament explicit in the Act. I hope—and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman shares this hope—that the commission and industry in turn will respond to the spirit of the amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 6

MODIFICATION OF ACT OF 1964

Lords Amendment: No. 2, in page 8, line 37, leave out "and 12" and insert ", 12 and 14(1)".

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Robert Chichester-Clark): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this we shall take the following Lords Amendments.
No. 9, in page 34, line 5, leave out from "words" to end of paragraph and insert:
from the beginning to 'carried on' there shall be substituted the words ' An industrial training board may, with the consent of the Commission given with the approval of the Minister, exercise such functions in connection with training for employment' and at the end of section 14(1) there shall be inserted the words; and the board may enter into agreements for the making of payments to the board in respect of the exercise in pursuance of this subsection of functions by the board.'
No. 14, in page 48, line 48, at end insert:
13.—(1) An industrial training board may, with the consent of the Commission given with the approval of the Minister, exercise such functions in connection with training for employment outside Great Britain of persons temporarily in Great Britain as are exercisable by it under subsections (1) and (4) of section 2 of this Act in connection with the training of persons employed or intending to be employed in the industry for which the board is established; and the board may enter into agreements for the making of payments to the board in respect of the exercise in pursuance of this subsection of functions by the board.
No. 15, in page 51, line 39, at end insert:
7A. In section 14(1) of the Act for the words from the beginning to" carried on" there shall be substituted the words" An industrial training board may, with the consent of the Minister, exercise such functions in connection with training for employment."

Mr. Chichester-Clark: The main amendments are those to Parts I and III of Schedule 2. The others are consequential.
The amendment to Part I of Schedule 2 means that a training board will be able to take the initiative in suggesting that it might exercise its powers in relation to people temporarily in Great Britain and intending to be employed outside Great Britain, but that its exercise of any such powers should be subject to the consent of the commission, given with the approval of the Secretary of State.
The amendments preserve the position that money raised by levy on industry may not be used for this purpose, so the finance for any such help for overseas students would have to come either from the students or the foreign governments

in question, from the overseas development administration, or possibly—if export promotion was involved—from the Department of Trade and Industry.

Question put and agreed to

Clause 8

PROVISION OF SERVICES BY EDUCATION AUTHORITIES

Lords Amendment: No. 3, in page 12, line 34, at end insert:
except that the said reference does include part-time attendance by persons who satisfy the local education authority in question that their attendance is with a view to employment".

Mr. Dudley Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
It was suggested in another place that it is not enough that a local education authority should have only a power and not a duty to make arrangements to provide vocational advice to someone who attends an evening class with a view to improving his employment prospects. This amendment was accordingly accepted on Report in order to remove what could be regarded as an invidious distinction.
The effect is that if someone satisfies a careers officer that he is attending evening classes with a view to employment—that is, in order to obtain another job, or improve himself in his present employment with a view to advancement or promotion—the local authority has a duty to offer him help.
This is an improvement to the Bill and I therefore commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 15

SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT

Lords Amendment: No. 4, in page 18, line 41, leave out "and 4" and insert "4, 8 and 12".

Mr. Dudley Smith: I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is a minor technical amendment. I will happily explain it if anyone wishes me to do so, but it would be taking up the time of the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 2

MODIFICATIONS OF INDUSTRIAL TRAINING ACT 1964

Lords Amendment: No. 5, in page 25, line 39, leave out "any of it" and insert "levy".

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this we shall take the following Lords Amendments:
No. 8, in page 32, line 4, leave out "all" and insert "the employers".
No. 10, in page 39, line 1, leave out any of it "and" insert "levy".
No. 13, in page 45, line 43, leave out "all" and insert "the employers".

Mr. Chichester-Clark: At an earlier stage in the Bill, while speaking to an amendment which I might describe as the non-exemption levy amendment, I said that I wanted to make it clear that such proposals might cover a whole industry or only part of it. It may apply to the whole of a levy or only part of it.
Reflection on the wording of Section 7(1B) and on the wording of a related section cast doubts on whether it was sufficiently clear that proposals of this kind could cover all, and not just some, of the employers in the industry. These amendments seek to clear up any doubts in that respect and put the matter beyond doubt.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 6, in page 26, line 10 after "emoluments" insert:
and payments intended to be disbursed as emoluments which are".

Mr. Chichester-Clark: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this we shall take the following Lords Amendments:
No. 7, in page 26, line 11, leave out "employees of his" and insert:
or in respect of persons employed.
No. 11, in page 39, line 22, after "emoluments" insert:
and payments intended to be disbursed as emoluments which are".

No. 12, in page 39, line 23, leave out "employees of his" and insert:
or in respect of persons employed".

Mr. Chichester-Clark: As the Bill stands, a training board can impose a levy of up to 1 per cent. of an employer's payments to employees in the industry. If the levy is above 1 per cent., affirmative resolution is required. "Employees" is defined to mean not only employees under a contract of service but also persons employed under a contract for services—for example, self-employed labour-only sub-contractors—and others.
Therefore, a board can make a levy, without affirmative resolution, as long as it is not more than 1 per cent. of an employer's payments of wages to his employees and his payments to self-employed labour-only sub-contractors, and so on. That is clearly desirable. Without it, boards might not be able to make their levies bite on payments to these self-employed people without inadvertently going over the 1 per cent. limit.
There is another case which the Bill as it stands may not cover. An employer may engage workers through the agency of a labour-only sub-contracting firm and pay the firm instead of paying the workers direct. In this case, legally speaking, I am advised that there may be no employment relationship between the employer and the workers concerned—neither a contract of service nor a contract for services. So they are not "employees of his" in the terms of the Bill as it stands.
The amendments make the necessary changes to ensure that a board will be able to take into account, when calculating its levy rate, not only the employer's payments to his employees and his payments to self-employed labour-only subcontractors but also any payments to a labour-only sub-contracting firm in respect of workers engaged by him through the agency of the firm.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 3

MINOR AND COMSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS OF ENACTMENTS

Lords Amendment: No. 16, in page 56, line 28, at end insert:

The Unemployment Insurance Act 1935

1. Section 80 of the Unemployment Insurance Act 1935 (which provides for payments out of the National Insurance Fund in respect of the attendance at certain courses of persons entitled to unemployment benefit) shall cease to have effect.

Mr. Dudley Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this we are to take Lords Amendment No. 21,
Page 60, line 3, at end insert:


25 &amp; 26 Geo. 5. c. 8.
The Unemployment Insurance Act 1935.
Section 80.

Mr. Smith: This is largely a technical amendment which seeks to repeal a provision that is no longer needed. It is a sensible adjustment to be made.

Mr. Harold Walker: The hon. Gentleman says that it is a technical amendment, but it appears to me that it is removing something which, if of little use, none the less provides a facility for unemployed workers. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the facility will still be preserved within the powers under the Bill for the Manpower Services Commission and its agencies?

Mr. Smith: I did not realise that the hon. Member wished to challenge the amendment. The Bill already provides for the repeal of various provisions authorising payments out of the National Insurance Fund towards the cost of training courses, the main one being Section 3(6) of the Employment and Training Act 1948. This is because the cost of training policies is fully reflected in the public expenditure allocation. Subventions from the National Insurance Fund do not free more resources for training policies but only complicate counting and are in practice of a rather arbitrary nature.
Moreover, levels of unemployment are affected by other Government measures and there is no reason to single out this one. It would be impossible to make compensatory payments to or from the fund for all such measures. Section 80 of the 1935 Act is another such provision and it is logical that it, too, should be repealed. The need for this did not become apparent until the Bill had left this House and was being considered in another place.
In those circumstances, it is a sensible adjustment—nothing whatever is lost—and it is, as I described in opening, a technical adjustment.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 17, in page 57, line 39, leave out second "for" and insert "after".

Mr. Dudley Smith: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
It might be convenient if we also took with this the following Lords Amendments:
No. 18, in page 57, line 40, leave out "substituted" and insert "inserted".
No. 19, in page 57, line 42, leave out "for" and insert "after".
No. 20, in page 57, line 43, leave out "substituted" and insert "inserted".
I can assure the hon. Member for Doncaster that these are purely drafting amendments to remove a technical defect in the Bill which was discovered later and again it would seem sensible to put it right in this way.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

NORTHERN IRELAND (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL

Lords Anzendtnents considered.

Clause 5

ADMISSIBILITY OF WRITTEN STATEMENTS IN PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO SCHEDULED OFFENCES

Lords Amendment: No. 1, in page 4, line 23, leave out "or mental".

The Solicitor-General (Sir Michael Havers): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: I gather that the suggestion is that we should consider at the same time Lords Amendment No. 2, in page 4, line 23, after "witness" insert:
or is unfit to attend as a witness by reason of a mental condition which has arisen since he made the statement".

The Solicitor-General: These amendments relate to the admissibility of a signed, written statement in the absence of the person who made it because of his mental unfitness to attend. The clause originally permitted this statement to be admitted in evidence regardless of when the mental illness had begun. The amendment provides that the time must be subsequent to the making of the statement, on the basis that, if the absent witness were mentally ill at the time of the making of the statement, this would throw considerable doubt on the validity and the weight of the statement.
A wider amendment was debated in Committee in this House which would have had the effect of excluding any such statement made by a witness who was mentally ill regardless of when the condition arose. For obvious reasons, that was unacceptable. The present amendment is acceptable since, for example, it would not cover the case where the witness since making his statement had been so intimidated that his mental health broke down. I am not over-enthusiastic about the amendment, because I can see perhaps further difficulties arising from it, but I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

INSURANCE COMPANIES AMENDMENT BILL [Lords]

Lords Amendment in lieu of certain Commons Amendments disagreed to by the Lords and of Lords Amendment to one of the Commons Amendments, considered.

Clause 42

INTERMEDIARIES IN INSURANCE TRANSACTIONS

The Lords have disagreed to the following Amendments made by the Commons:

In page 33, line 17, leave out "this section" and insert "subsection (1) above".

In page 33, line 18, at end insert:—
(2A) Where a person in the course of carrying on any business or profession issues any such invitation as is mentioned in subsection (1)(a) above in relation to an insurance company which is not an authorised insurer in respect of the contract in question he shall, when issuing the invitation, inform the person to whom it is issued that the company is not such an insurer as aforesaid.

In this subsection 'authorised insurer', in relation to a contract of any description, means a person entitled to carry on in Great Britain insurance business of a class comprising the effecting of contracts of that description."

In page 33, line 19, leave out "this section" and insert:—
subsection (1) above or who contravenes subsection (2A) above'

but propose the following Amendment in lieu thereof:

In page 33, line 16, at end insert:—
(IA) Regulations may be made for requiring any person who, in the course of carrying on any business or profession, issues any such invitation as is mentioned in subsection (1)(a) above in relation to an insurance company which is not an authorised insurer in respect of the contract in question to inform the person to whom the invitation is issued that the company is not such an insurer as aforesaid.

In this subsection "authorised insurer", in relation to a contract of any description, means a person entitled to carry on in Great Britain insurance business of a class comprising the effecting of contracts of that description"

7.15 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Grant): I beg to move, That this House doth agree to the amendment made by the Lords in lieu of the amendment made by this House to which the Lords have disagreed.
This is just to rectify a drafting error made on Report but shrewdly spotted by my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Nicholas Edwards). It fulfils an undertaking which I gave to him in Committee.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I should like to express my gratitude to my hon. Friend for finding a way, even at this late stage, to put right an error at an earlier stage.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

SOCIAL SECURITY CONTRIBUTIONS

7.16 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Paul Dean): I beg to move,
That the Social Security (Contributions) (Married Women and Widows Special Provisions) Regulations 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 19th July, be approved.
These regulations provide the rules under which married women and widows may exercise the rights of election under Section 42 of the Social Security Act 1973. They supplement the Social Security (Contributions) Regulations 1973, made on 20th July 1973, and need to be made to enable employers to be given detailed guidance in time for them to plan for the changeover in April 1975 to the new system of calculating and collecting social security contributions.
The proposed regulations do not contain any provisions about benefits for married women, widows or divorcees. These, and the transitional provisions intended to simplify the changeover for women who have chosen not to pay contributions under the National Insurance Acts, will form part of a separate set of regulations which will be submitted for approval after the Summer Recess.
In general, the regulations follow the same principles as the existing regulations as to the categories which are allowed to opt and as to the procedures for making elections and for having a document as proof of election for the convenience of the women concerned and their employers. The main points of difference in principle from the present arrangements are, first, that elections apply to a minimum period of a year—that is contained in Regulation 2(4); secondly, liability as an employed earner must go hand in hand with liability as a self-employed earner—that is contained in Regulation 6; and thirdly, married women self-employed earners are liable, unless they opt out; this is contained in Regulation 2(1)(a).
These differences flow from the changes in the contribution provisions under the Act. The most important is the fact that elections must operate in units of complete tax years.
As now, employers will operate on the basis that they deduct full contributions unless the woman concerned can produce a certificate that she is not liable for full contributions. In general, an election once made will run on from year to year unless it is revoked, or until widowhood, when separate conditions apply.
This will save a great deal of paper work for the women concerned, their employers and for the Department which would otherwise be involved in fresh elections every year, or where a woman remarried soon after divorce, as not infrequently happens. This sensible provision caters for the vast majority of cases, where a woman opts out as soon as she can and remains opted out for the rest of her working life.
As regards the start of an election, the most common case is where a single woman who is at work gets married. She will be able to opt out, but only with effect from the start of the next tax year. The second most common case is that of a woman who is already married, or a qualifying widow, when she takes up work. She, too, must elect in whole tax years, which will normally be for future tax years. However, if she elects before 11th May in any year, the election will be back-dated for the five weeks to the beginning of the tax year. This will clearly operate to ease the position of women and their employers by giving them a little time after the tax year starts.
Elections run on and, unless revoked or ended by widowhood, will cease automatically at the beginning of the tax year containing age 60. The regulations provide for automatic exemption from then on, because further contributions would provide no further benefit rights and would be paid only because a woman did not exercise the option through ignorance or mistake.
Widows need and receive special treatment under the regulations. On widowhood any election ends and a woman is excepted from all contribution liability for the six months' period of the widow's allowance. During this period she can choose whether to pay full contributions or opt out. A widow, therefore, has the fullest freedom of choice to do whatever suits her best. If she opts out, her election will run on from year to year until


age 60, like the married woman's. Revocations can be made at any time but, like elections, will generally operate only from the beginning of the next tax year. These are the main principles underlying the regulations as they apply to the groups of women who are covered.
Perhaps I might briefly mention one or two other more detailed aspects of the regulations. The list of qualifying widows set out in Regulation 2(5) is, in substance, the same as the widow beneficiaries who are allowed to opt out under the present scheme. The reduced rate of contribution in Clause 1 is 0·6 per cent. That is in Section 2(6)(a) of the Act, covering the industrial injuries element and the National Health Service element towards the cost of the National Health Service. The opted-out self-employed woman is relieved of all liability for Class 2 contributions because she has no industrial injury cover, and it would not be worth while charging a National Health Service contribution on its own.
Class 1 and 2 elections must march in step—this is contained in Regulation 6—to prevent manipulation of elections. Similarly, any woman who makes an election must not be able to pay Class 3 contributions—this is provided for in Regulation 7—or she could opt out of sizeable Class 1 or Class 2 contributions and purchase a pension more cheaply with Class 3 contributions.
I realise that these regulations are somewhat technical and complicated. They are necessary at an early stage so that employers may have ample time to make the relevant changes in their arrangements. If the House agrees these regulations we shall, of course, be taking steps to provide comprehensive guidance to employers and all those concerned. Individual advice will be available, too, as it is now, from the staff of our local social security offices, to any married woman who may wish to seek guidance on what is the most appropriate course in her individual circumstances.

7.25 p.m.

Mr. Michael Meacher: The issue underlying the regulations has already been discussed under Section 42 of the Social Security Act, both in Committee and on Report. Therefore, I do not intend to go over the ground at any length.
I ought to make it clear that the Opposition's view is that the married women's option should not be retained at all but should be abolished. This is a view which is shared by the National Women's Commission, which is a bipartisan and prestigious body which believes that the retention of the provision is retrogressive. We believe that to retain it is to retain the concept of dependence for women. In recent years women have shown that they wish the concept to be abolished.
We also believe that perhaps the most critical area in social security provisions concerns marital breakdown and the gaps within the service. Perhaps there is greater need to make provision for resettlement allowance rather than to retain, for example, the election of married women not to pay full social security contributions.
Thirdly, if they make such an option women lose altogether contributions which they made before their marriage. If they continue to work after their marriage, they come up against the problem of the half test, which is dependent on the retention of the married women's option and the need to prove that contributions are being made fully as married women. Indeed, I shall be bringing to the Under-Secretary's attention this week the case of a constituent of mine who, as a result of the existence of the married women's option, will lose altogether no less than 33 years of contributions. That is one of the deep problems involved in retaining the option.
Fourthly, married women who qualify on their husband's insurance cannot get the pension until their husband reaches retirement age, unless they are five or more years younger, which in most cases they are not. That produces a great deal of heartache in a number of cases. Fifthly, a wife cannot compel her husband to pay contributions. This often leads to severe problems. Lastly, if she exercises her option under the regulations, she denies herself unemployment and sickness benefit, though her wage or the benefit she may have as a result if the option did not exist may well be crucial for hire-purchase payments or for the mortgage.
For these reasons, we believe that it is retrogressive to retain the regulations. I shall not take the time of the House any longer, because these issues have been


discussed at some length. I shall therefore ask the Under-Secretary some specific questions about the operation of the regulations.
The first question concerns Regulations 2 and 3. It appears that a widow's election, which seems rather anomalous, will continue to have an effect under the regulations if she remarries. Is this the case? If so, what is the justification? Why should a widow when she has just remarried be treated differently from any other married woman who is deemed liable to pay Class 1 contributions, unless she makes a specific election not to do so?
The second question, which is of some importance, concerns the definition of married women, which is the one item in the regulations not defined in Regulation 1. Let us consider a woman cohabitating so that if she were dependent on supplementary benefit she would be denied supplementary benefit under the cohabitation rule. If she went out to work but retained the same relationship, would she be entitled to exercise the married woman's option? I do not think that that is a nit-picking question. It raises an important principle because, if that is not so, the question arises whether it is fair to deprive her of benefit as though she were married and then not to grant her the prerogative under the regulations which is appropriate to a married woman. I should be grateful for the Under-Secretary's considered opinion.
Thirdly I turn to Regulation 5, and in particular paragraph (1)(b). When a widow decides in the 26 weeks after she has been widowed to pay Class I contributions and then changes her mind—as the Minister said, that is permitted under the regulations—and elects to pay Class I contributions at the reduced rate, is her decision in that case retrospective? If so, is she entitled to a refund?
My last question concerns Regulation 9(4). In view of the period of grace of five weeks under Regulation 2(4) for the election to be operative in the year in which it was made, what is the position if the employer holds on to the certificate so that the period of grace elapses without the certificate being handed to an office of the Department?
Alternatively, if a married woman or a widow wishes to revoke the election which she has previously made but the employer, for whatever reason, fails to

return the certificate in time, is there provision within the regulations to regard a specific request in writing to the employer as tantamount to making an election for revocation or whatever the case might be?
I have mentioned four detailed points and I appreciate that it may not be possible for the hon. Gentleman to give an immediate answer. However, they raise important issues of principle and I hope that he may in due time be able to have another close look at these matters in accordance with the points I have made.

Mr. Dean: The hon. Gentleman has asked me a number of detailed and technical points. It will be for the convenience of the House, as I did not have notice of the points he intended to raise, if I were to write to him about them. I think I have the answers to all the matters he raised but I want to be certain that the information I give to him on these extremely detailed matters is accurate. If the hon. Member agrees to that course, I think it would be the most convenient procedure.
I must apologise for a small misprint in the regulations. It appears in page 2, Regulation 2(1)(b), where it is said:
A widow who satisfies the requirement of paragraph (4)".
That, in fact, should read "paragraph (5)".

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved.

That the Social Security (Contributions) (Married Women and Widows Special Provisions) Regulations 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 19th July, be approved.

NORTHERN IRELAND (PIG PRODUCTION LEVY)

7.33 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Mills): I beg to move,
That the Pig Production Development (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 11th July, be approved.
The purpose of the order is to amend the Pig Production Development Act (Northern Ireland) 1964 to allow a higher levy to be raised under Section 4 of the Act.
The Act established the Northern Ireland Pig Production Development Committee, which consists of representatives of the Ulster Farmers' Union, the Pigs Marketing Board, the breed societies and the Ministry of Agriculture for Northern Ireland. The committee's functions are to provide services and facilities intended to benefit pig producers, to make pig production more profitable, and to encourage the genetic improvement of pigs in Northern Ireland.
In practice the committee carries out its functions by paying incentives to the owners of nucleus breeding herds to encourage them to record results in their herds and to test pigs at the Northern Ireland Pig Testing Station. It provides two-thirds of the capital costs of the testing station and 100 per cent. of the running costs. It pays incentives to encourage the dissemination of high-quality breeding stock and it is underwriting a pig artificial insemination service for a two-year trial period.
The committee meets its expenditure out of the Pig Production Development Fund established under Section 3 of the Act. The revenue raised by the levy on all pigs sold by producers to the Northern Ireland Pigs Marketing Board goes into the fund. That is the fund's only source of income.
At present the levy is fixed at five pence per pig. That is the maximum level permitted under the Act. The amount of money raised is insufficient to allow the committee to meet its present commitments and to proceed with its plans, which include the building of an extension to the pig-testing station.
The order amends the Act to allow for a levy of up to 20 pence per pig, though the intention is to raise the levy to 10 pence per pig by subordinate legislation in the first instance. The amount of additional money involved will, of course, depend on the number of pigs produced in Northern Ireland but it is likely to be in the region of £80,000 per year.
The Ulster Farmers' Union and the Pigs Marketing Board are agreeable to the Act being amended and to the levy being increased to 10 pence per pig. I think that hon. Members can rest assured that the people who will have

to pay the increased levy, the pig producers of Northern Ireland, are content that they are obtaining value for their money and not getting a pig in a poke.

7.38 p.m.

Captain L. P. S. Orr: I apologise to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for the fact that I missed the opening sentences of what he had to say. None the less, I understand what the order is about. As I understand it, the objectives of the order are acceptable to everyone in Ulster. The pig producers as a whole and the farming community generally have great confidence in the present Pigs Marketing Board in Ulster and they have great confidence in what is being done in the areas which the moneys are intended to finance.
I hope that my hon. Friend will be good enough to say something About the extent of the smuggling of pigs across the border. It is a great problem. I understand that the rate was as high as 10,000 a week. It may have diminished a little since then but I understand that it is still a substantial number of pigs.
If the moneys are being paid by pig producers for the purposes of improving the Northern Ireland stock, those who smuggle across the border are to a large extent living off their fellows.

Mr. Christopher Woodhouse: Will my hon. and gallant Friend say in which direction the pigs are smuggled across the border?

Captain Orr: From north to south. Those who are paying the levy and who are not engaged in smuggling are to some extent subsidising those who are engaged in illegal activity. Will my hon. Friend say what is being done to contain that activity? Further, is there anything more that can be done to convince those who are engaged in smuggling that it is not good in the long run for the Ulster pig-producing community and for Ulster agriculture?

7.40 p.m.

Mr. David Clark (Collie Valley): 1 want to pursue the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr). The smuggling of pigs from Northern Ireland into the South is obviously affected by this order. I understand that the numbers are decreasing, and perhaps the Minister can


elaborate on this. We are not, however, talking about a few pigs. At the peak, about six weeks ago, 10,000 pigs a week were mysteriously disappearing from the headquarters of the Pigs Marketing Board. We can only assume that the shortfall from 35,000 to 23,000 was caused by the smuggling which was clearly rife.
We appreciate that there are particular difficulties in Ulster at the moment. We sympathise with the police in their efforts to check the border. I understand that the livestock inspection officers supposed to look after this problem are not at full strength. Perhaps the Minister can comment on that. This is costing the EEC a great deal of money. At the peak period it would mean that £1 million a year was involved in a swindle on taxpayers in Europe because of this illicit trade. Not only that; it means, because of the number of pigs removed from the United Kingdom bacon market, that our bacon prices have risen correspondingly.
From my inquiries and from what Ministers have said I understand that the fall in the British bacon price has in some way offset this activity. I should be grateful to hear the Minister's views on this subject.

7.43 p.m.

Mr. James Kilfedder: I want to mention some of the matters raised by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. David Clark). We have been asking Questions in the House about the smuggling of pigs from Northern Ireland into the Irish Republic for some time. The numbers have fallen, from about 10,000 a week to about 3,000 a week. It is still a sizeable figure. I was surprised, when I put it to one of the Ministers of State in the Northern Ireland Office, that I received a very brusque reply. I cannot remember his exact words but he said something to the effect that he could easily smuggle me into the Free State. I do not want to follow that line because I thought it was insulting then and I still think so. Coming from that Minister I say no more about it.
It is wrong that pigs should be smuggled into the Irish Republic, which is not taking effective preventive measures. The Republic benefits from this trade. This is a benefit from the

Common Market Commission. 1 know that my hon. Friend will try his best to see that this is put right. It is not only a question of defrauding the Common Market Commission, and we have heard a good deal about frauds there, but it is also unfair to the other pig producers in Northern Ireland. It further means that the price of bacon and pork products in Northern Ireland is increased. This is hard on the housewife, especially at a time of rising prices. With those observations I welcome the order.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Peter Mills: I shall try to keep strictly within the rules of order in replying to some of the points that have been raised. I cannot stray as far as some hon. Members did, much as I would like to. I am glad that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) welcomes the order. I am sure he is right and that it will be of benefit to the Northern Ireland pig industry. He referred to the smuggling problem. When we have the sort of border which exists between the North and South in Ireland it is highly tempting, to say the least, for farmers to get their pigs across the border if they can obtain £2 or £3 more per pig. I am glad to say that the smuggling has diminished considerably.
My hon. and gallant Friend has raised an important point in referring to the question of fairness. A large number of pig farmers in Northern Ireland are paying the levy, thereby contributing to the work which the committee does in pig testing and producing a better type of pig for the benefit of the whole Province. Yet at the height of the smuggling it could be said that perhaps 10,000 to 12,000 pigs were being smuggled and the farmers were getting all the benefits but not paying the levy to the committee. These farmers are not playing fair.
It is important that Northern Ireland should keep all the pigs that it can so that we may have full employment in our meat and processing factories for the benefit of everyone. If the farmers enjoy the benefits of these schemes to improve the pigs, which are so important to Northern Ireland as a pigmeat exporting country, they must also pay the levy. It is difficult to contain the problem in present circumstances because the police


and security forces are dealing with other sorts of problems. Dealing with terrorists is their first priority, but I am certain that when things get quieter they will turn their attention to this.

Mr. Peter Archer: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether discussions have been held with the Government of the South?

Mr. Mills: That is so. The Government of the South are just as anxious as we are to see that smuggling does not continue.

Mr. Woodhouse: It is probably within the recollection of my hon. Friend that, when we had foot-and-mouth disease in this country, the authorities in Southern Ireland found no difficulty at all in preventing cattle moving across the border from the North.

Mr. Mills: That may be so but I can assure my hon. Friend that the border is very difficult to define. Some farmers have some of their fields in the South and some in the North. It is not as easy as it seems. I must correct my hon. and gallant Friend when he said that this smuggling was only one way. I am not saying that there is smuggling to the North, but there are certainly cattle and pig movements to the North.

Captain Orr: Will my hon. Friend say precisely what is the incentive which leads to this problem?

Mr. Mills: It is fairly simple. The South went for high food prices as soon as it entered the Common Market. Therefore, the curers and pig dealers were able to pay a much higher price in the South. There were other problems concerning compensatory amounts too. I do net want the House to hold me to this figure, but at one stage there was a difference of approximately £4 per pig. Dealers were able to tempt farmers in Northern Ireland with an extra £4 a pig. Things have altered considerably and it is balancing out now. As the transitional period goes on and prices level out, I hope that the smuggling will be reduced to zero.
The hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) has left the Chamber. He was upset by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, but he must accept that

my hon. Friend's recent remarks were a joke. He was not being rude.
I commend the order to the House. It will be of great benefit to the pig farmers of Northern Ireland.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Pig Production Development (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 11th July, be approved.

NORTHERN IRELAND (MR. SPEAKER NEILL'S RETIREMENT)

7.51 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Mills): I beg to move,
That the Mr. Speaker Neill's Retirement (Northern Ireland) Order 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 16th July, be approved.
The purpose of the order is to provide an annuity for the former Speaker of the Northern Ireland House of Commons, who retired on 31st March. Hon. Members will recall that until the Parliamentary and Other Pensions Act 1972 established a framework for the award of pensions to retiring Speakers of this House it was necessary to introduce legislation in each case, so that over the years there was a series of individual Acts dealing with pensions for individual Speakers. The 1972 Act provides that in future a retiring Speaker shall receive a pension amounting to half his salary at the time he retires, and no further legislation will be required to meet individual cases.
In Northern Ireland, however, there is no parallel to the 1972 Act and legislation is still required to provide a superannuation award for a retiring Speaker.
Of the three previous Speakers of the Northern Ireland House of Commons, only the third received such an award. This was Mr. Speaker Stronge, who was granted an annuity of £1,500 a year in addition to his Member's pension by Mr. Speaker Stronge's Retirement Act (Northern Ireland) 1969. Under the Act he was permitted to draw his Member's pension, instead of having his contributions to the Members' Pension Fund refunded, and this was taken into account in fixing the level of the annuity at one-third of his salary.
It is proposed to retain this formula in calculating the pension for Mr. Speaker Neill but, since the Northern Ireland Speaker's salary was fixed in April 1965 and has not been increased since, it seems only equitable to increase the amount of the pension by the amount by which a pension commencing in April 1965 would have been increased under pensions increase legislation since that date. This would give Mr. Speaker Neill a pension of £2,260, in addition to his pension of £665 as a Member of the Northern Ireland House of Commons.
It is intended that regulations by the Ministry of Finance under Sections 5(2) and 14 of the Pensions (Increase) Act (Northern Ireland) 1971 will provide for future pensions increases under that Act to apply to the annuity proposed to be granted to Mr. Speaker Neill under the order.
It is right and proper to recognise Mr. Speaker Neill's service in this way.

7.54 p.m.

Mr. Peter Archer: The Opposition would like to seize the opportunity of paying tribute to a distinguished Speaker. Mr. Speaker Neill has deserved well of the community, and we wish him a long and happy retirement.
It is never easy to find a worthy successor to a distinguished Speaker, but we regret the difficulty being experienced in that quest. It is important that the Assembly should begin to function effectively as quickly as possible.
This is the 49th piece of legislation concerning Northern Ireland, if we include Bills and orders, which we have debated in the Chamber since the passing of the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act, and later tonight we shall debate the 50th.
Perhaps it is an appropriate moment to celebrate our half-century by rising for the Summer Recess. We would, however, do so with lighter hearts if we felt that the new Assembly was in a position rapidly to seize the challenge and the opportunities. Much of the legislation we have discussed would have been more appropriately handled in the Province. We wish to see Irish Members debating Irish questions.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition suggested that if a form of

Executive could be agreed upon quickly we should not begrudge being recalled from our holidays to consider a possible order activating Part II of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act.
In paying our tribute to Mr. Speaker Neill we acknowledge the passing of an era while welcoming a new era, with its opportunities. It would be tragic if those opportunities were allowed to be wasted.

7.57 p.m.

Mr. James Molyneaux: I join in the tribute paid to Mr. Speaker Neil and his predecessors by the hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer). Northern Ireland has been fortunate to have a man of such outstanding ability to perform that task. The decision to abolish Stormont was, in a way a concession to the terrorists in the hope that such a gesture would isolate the moderate Catholics from the IRA. It was reasoned that to concede to the terrorists would, somehow, isolate them. It is not a belief to which I have subscribed. In retrospect it can be seen to have failed.
At a time when it looks as if the wisdom of Solomon may be needed to find a successor to Mr. Speaker Neill in the new Assembly, what will happen when the Assembly comes to consider matters of real substance if it finds it so difficult to push a reluctant successor to the Floor to accept the post? I confess that my fears have been reinforced as to the credibility and the viability of the whole structure when it comes to a real test of matters of policy. Because of these fears it would have been better timing to leave the order until after the recess. We might have been in a better position then to judge the situation of the new Assembly.

Mr. Peter Mills: I thank the hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer) for welcoming the order and for his tribute to Mr. Speaker Neill. Certainly Mr. Speaker Neill had a difficult period in office.
I add my tribute to those offered in the House for the wise and careful role that Mr. Speaker Neill has played over the years. The hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton mentioned the difficulty of finding a presiding officer. I must correct him—it is not a Speaker but a presiding officer.

Mr. Peter Archer: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary but the words I used were "worthy successor".

Mr. Mills: I apologise—the "worthy successor" is called a presiding officer. We must have patience in this matter. It is important to get the right man to carry out this difficult task. There are considerable discussions going on between the various parties. But it is important to get a presiding officer, and I am sure that that will become a reality soon.
My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) also paid tribute to Mr. Speaker Neill. My hon. Friend probably knows more about him than most of us here, and we must take my hon. Friend's words into account. However, I had better not stray into any other path on that other than to say that it is important for the House to agree to this order so that Mr. Speaker Neill can have his well-earned pension.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Mr. Speaker Neill's Retirement (Northern Ireland) Order 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 16th July, be approved.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (TREATIES)

8.0 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Royle): I beg to move,
That the European Communities (Definition of Treaties) Order 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 16th July, be approved.
Included in the schedule to the order is, first, an ECSC agreement with Norway. It was signed on 14th May 1973 and the text was laid before Parliament in June as Command 5347. It will come into effect on the first day of the second month following notification by the contracting parties that procedures necessary to this end have been completed. The conclusion of the parliamentary and Privy Council procedures in relation to the proposed Order in Council will enable formal notification to be made by this country.
Two decisions of the representatives of Governments of the member States of

the European Coal and Steel Community establishing supervision of imports of certain products originating in Austria and Sweden are included in the schedule to the order. Texts of the decisions are contained in the Official Journal of the European Communities, Volume 16, Number L59, dated 5th February 1973, which is available to Members in the House.
The last three items in the schedule relate to exchanges of letters between the head of the United Kingdom delegation to the European Communities and the heads of the Austrian, Swiss and Swedish delegations concerning duty-free quotas of paper products. These exchanges took place on 22nd July 1972, with the exception that the acknowledgment from the Swiss delegation is dated 22nd August 1972. These exchanges are shown in Command Papers 5159, 5180 and 5181 which were laid before Parliament in December 1972.
The matters dealt with in this order are uncontentious. They should not give the House cause for difficulty. The draft Order in Council follows the precedent set in December last and, as on that occasion, the terms of Section 1(3). There is no doubt that all six items listed in the schedule are new treaties within the scope of that section.

8.3 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Woodhouse: All the other orders which the House has had or will have before it this evening have one feature in common: that this House has the power either to accept them or to reject them. I should like an assurance from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that the same is true of this order. I am not saying for one moment that this House should exercise its power to reject the order, assuming that it has such a power.
I ask the question not because I have any objection to the six agreements listed in the schedule. In the light of my hon. Friend's explanation, they all seem to be unexceptionable. The countries and Governments with which they have been contracted are countries and Governments with which we can have no possible quarrel. Suppose, however, that one of the six were to be objectionable. Would it he possible for us to detach it from the rest, or should we have to reject the


whole lot? Even more important, could we reject the whole lot? What would happen if we purported to do so?
This is not an imaginary hypothesis. We might be confronted with an order containing five unexceptionable agreements and one with, say, Portugal or Spain which the Opposition might wish to reject, or one with the Greek military dictatorship which I might want to reject—unless in the meantime my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary had acted upon my proposal to suspend negotiations for the adherence of the United Kingdom to a treaty of association between the EEC and Greece until democratic institutions had been restored in Greece.
Therefore, seriously and not merely hypothetically, I ask my hon. Friend for a definition of the powers of this House in such cases as I envisage. Have we the power to reject such orders? If we have not, what is the point of the motion which my hon. Friend has just moved? If we have the power to reject orders and if we do so, what happens then?

8.7 p.m.

Mr. Royle: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Woodhouse) for raising an important point which probably gives concern to other hon. Members who cannot be here today.
Of course this House has the power to reject the order. What it does not have the power to do is to alter the order in respect of individual agreements.
I understand that my hon. Friend is concerned about the possibility of an order affecting Greece coming before the House. Of course this does not arise on the present order. However, my hon. Friend might like to know that a protocol adapting the agreement with Turkey to suit the circumstances of the enlarged Community was signed on 30th June and that we expect to include it in the next Order in Council under Section 1(3). The corresponding adaptation protocol in regard to Greece is still under negotiation.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the European Communities (Definition of Treaties) Order 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 16th July, be approved.

WELSH NATIONAL WATER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

8.8 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Thomas): I beg to move,
That the Welsh National Water Development Authority (Establishment and Constitution) Order 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 19th July, be approved.
Section 2 of the Water Act 1973 provides for the establishment of the Welsh National Water Development Authority to carry out the functions conferred upon it by Part II of the Act.
Section 2(4) of the Act provides that the Welsh Authority shall be established by order, and Section 3(10) that the constitution of the Welsh Authority shall be prescribed in that order, which shall be laid in draft before, and approved by resolution of, each House. That section also requires me to lay the draft of the order not later than one month after the passing of the Act.
As right hon. and hon. Members are aware, the Water Act 1973 received Royal Assent on 18th July, and the draft of the order was laid on 19th July.
The Welsh Authority has a great deal of preparatory work to do before assuming responsibility for its functions on 1st April 1974. I have therefore provided that it shall come into existence on 6th August 1973. Its constitution is prescribed in Article 4 of the draft order. This is an interim constitution. The constitution will not be finally determined until the Government have given full consideration to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Constitution.
Accordingly I have provided in Article 4(1) that the constitution specified shall have effect only until 31st May 1977. Before that date a further draft order prescribing a substantive constitution will be laid.
During the passage of the Bill I undertook, in formulating an interim constitution, to have regard to Parliament's decisions about the constitution of the English regional water authorities. In particular I undertook to provide for a majority of local authority membership if this was so decided for the regional water authorities. The Act provides that there shall be such a majority.
This undertaking is fulfilled by the provisions of Article 4(1). I have borne in mind the feelings expressed during debate that it should be a workable majority, and the draft order provides this.
Article 4(1) also requires that 1 shall appoint the chairman of the authority and that there shall be 34 other members. As I have already told the House, it is my intention to appoint Lord Brecon as chairman. His wide experience will be a great asset to the authority. Of the 34 members, 20 will be appointed by local authorities and 14 by Ministers
I am sure that with the constitution provided the Welsh authority will be able to carry out, with proper regard to all the interests concerned, the efficient management of water in Wales. Therefore, I ask the House to approve that the order as drafted be made.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. George Thomas: I want, first, to register a very strong protest at the fact that we are discussing this order in reference to an Act that is not yet in print and available for the House. The Government have been in such a stampeding hurry in this matter that we had to try to remember the amendments proposed in another place which have a bearing on the order.
I want, secondly, to register a protest at the fact that a major order of this sort, in which all Wales is deeply interested, has been brought forward at such a stage in the business of the House. There ought to have been opportunity for a full day's debate on this major topic which causes considerable feeling throughout the Principality.
We do not like the order. It will not last for long. The order undermines local government in the Principality. It takes away responsibilities from elected local government and hands them over to 14 people nominated by Ministers and another 18 from Wales in local government and four from outside.
Responsibility for sewerage and water has been undertaken for a long period in the Principality by our local authorities. It is a very sad commentary on the Government's attitude to local government that at a time when we are creating larger local government units

the Government seek to take away from local government powers that it has hitherto carried out very effectively.
This order is another contribution by the Government to the inflation that is persecuting our country at present. Not content with forcing up the cost of our food and our homes, now even the water that we drink is to cost more for the Welsh people. Already the people of Montgomeryshire, according to a report in the Western Mail, have been told that they can look forward to a sharp increase in the cost of their water supply. This order creates a bureaucracy that will be highly expensive for the people of Wales.
On an earlier occasion the Minister for Local Government and Development told us that the Government sought
not to bind the authorities with unnecessary statutory obligations but merely to lay down general guide lines and general rules"— [OFFICIAL REPORT. 2nd May 1973, Vol. 855. c. 1261.]
The Secretary of State will have no other control over the price of the water that this national board can charge. On 2nd May the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment said
The cost of water, even if it were to be charged by volume, is infinitesimally small compared with the cost of heating it before it is used or buying and running a washing machine in which it is processed.—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 2nd May 1973. Vol. 855, c. 1279.]
But the people of Wales have only to wait. The cost of our water will escalate rapidly.
Perhaps the Secretary of State will be able to give us an estimate of what this order will cost the people of Wales in, first, the bureaucratic machinery that he is setting up and, secondly, the replacement of voluntary service by the payment that has to be made. What estimate has the Secretary of State made of the likely increase when the Welsh National Water Development Authority goes ahead with the metering of water supplies in Wales? Am I right in assuming that under the order the Secretary of State is giving the all-clear to the authority to introduce a meter charge at a time to suit itself? Is he telling the families in Wales that they will have to pay much more through a metering system and that the authority will decide when that will be introduced and how much it shall charge?
Water charges in Wales today fall on the water rate. People are able to talk to their elected representatives who serve on the joint water boards. But this monstrosity which the Secretary of State is creating is beyond the reach of the people. We shall have bureaucrats able to impose charges on people without the people being able to shift them if they dislike them or feel that they are not conducting their business properly.
Hitherto, water, like the air we breathe. has been treated differently from any other commodity. Under this order the Secretary of State reverses everything that has gone before.
In Committee it was decided that the chairman of the water authority should be elected by his fellow members. The Government were agitated about that. They brought the matter to the Floor of the House. Right hon. and hon. Members who had not heard a word of the argument trooped through the Lobbies to reverse the decision and to ensure that the chairman should be a creature of the Secretary of State, his nominee, paid by him—I beg his pardon—paid by the people of Wales. who have to pay through their charges for water, but answerable to the Secretary of State.
We wondered on this side why the Government were so fiercely resisting the right of their own board to appoint its own chairman. There was obviously good reason why the Government could not trust the board to choose a responsible person, and they reversed the decision. Now we know why the Government were so agitated.
The Secretary of State paid high tribute to his noble Friend Lord Brecon. The Secretary of State has resolved to give this lucrative appointment to a safe place-man. No one would be less likely to put up a fight for Welsh interests against the Secretary of State than his noble Friend the former Minister for Welsh Affairs. There will be no tough resistance from that quarter. He has top job. All the main influence will be in the hands of Lord Brecon who is known to be a loyal and dedicated supporter of the Government and the Conservative Party.
The order, if it is approved, will ensure that the Secretary of State will always be able to rely on getting his own way so far as the Water Authority in Wales

is concerned. The Welsh National Water Development Authority will be no more than a ventriloquist's doll. It should be renamed. It should not be called the Welsh National Water Development Authority. It ought to be called the Welsh Office Water Authority, for the Secretary of State might as well have taken the chair himself as appoint a former Minister who everyone knows is entirely loyal to the Conservative Party. In any case this is not a Welsh National Water Development Authority. It is a hybrid authority, for Cheshire, Herefordshire and Worcestershire are all members of it. This makes a nonsense of the title.
Does the Secretary of State realise that in defining, in the order, the area which the water authority will cover he is cutting out a very important part of the water supplying areas of Wales? Mid-Wales, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, produces a major proportion of our water, but I gather that as it is not included in the order, as far as I can see, as being the responsibility of the Welsh national authority, it comes under the Severn Authority, and will be controlled from Lincolnshire. The Secretary of State knows as well as I do that there is deep feeling about this.
The Secretary of State has set about this in the wrong way. We do not like the idea of these bureaucrats nominated by the Minister, these faceless creatures whom the Welsh people will be unable to move, even if they do not like them.
As the Government are able to get their own way and to establish this authority, I would have thought that the Secretary of State would lean over backwards to ensure that the authority has a good beginning. But it cannot have a good beginning with the way he has set about it. He referred to the Kilbrandon Commission, which we used to call the Crowther Commission until the unfortunate early death of Lord Crowther. No matter what that Commission reports, the Oppositon are determined to establish an elected council for Wales. Water will be one of the responsibilites of that elected council, so we shall restore to the Welsh people the right to control one of the major resources with which the Almighty has blessed that country.

8.25 p.m.

Mr. Peter Thomas: The right hon. Gentleman has asked me one or two questions and made one or two points which I should try to answer.
First, I appreciate that it is inconvenient, when an Act of Parliament is referred to in an order, if that Act is not in print. I am happy to say, however, knowing the right hon. Gentleman's interest in this subject, that he was well versed in the Bill which came out of the Committee, and all the relevant sections of the Act which I referred to are the same as they were in the Bill as amended by the Committee, and the Bill is in the Vote Office.
The right hon. Gentleman suggested that one was stampeding this order through in a hurry. I agree that the Welsh Water Authority will not assume responsibility for its functions before 1st April 1974, but it will need to undertake a great deal of preparatory work as a matter of some urgency. For instance, it will need to get on with the important task of appointing its chief officers. I am sure that it would not be the wish that we should lag behind the regional water authorities in England. That is why it is provided in Article I of the order that the authority shall come into operation on 6th August.

Mr. George Thomas: Since it is to come into operation within a forthnight the right hon. and learned Gentleman has, clearly, appointed the people. He knows the names of those who will serve. I realise that they have received letters from him. That is common knowledge in Wales. Will he be kind enough to tell the House the people whom he has appointed to start their duties on 6th August? Or is he waiting till the House goes down for the recess before he announces the names?

Mr. Peter Thomas: It surprises me that this is common knowledge in Wales because, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman, I have written no letters asking anyone. The right hon. Gentleman will see that by Article 4(1) of the order there will be 34 members apart from the chairman. Of those, 20 will be appointed by the local authorities: 14 will be appointed by Ministers, 10 by me and four jointly by me and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Therefore, there will be 20 local authority

members and 14 members appointed by Ministers.
I have asked the local authorities to send in their nominations. Some of them have, but many have not yet.
I have not written, neither has my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture jointly with me, to any nominated members.
I shall appoint 10 members who appear to me to have had experience of or shown capacity in some matter relevant to the functions of water authorities. I would hope to include people with experience in manufacturing industry, management and finance, labour relations, recreation and amenity, applied science, and consumer affairs. To get the right people for the job I have asked various bodies, including the TUC and CBI, to suggest to me the names of people they would consider to be suitable, and I have no doubt from the way they have responded—this is probably where the confusion lies, since they have responded to my request that I shall be able to appoint people who can make a very useful contribution to the management of water in Wales.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and I acting jointly will appoint four members who appear to us to have had experience of and shown capacity in agriculture, land drainage, or fisheries.
I cannot understand why the right hon. Gentleman referred to this as bureaucratic machinery when there is a working majority of local authority representatives, which was what in committee was asked for and which I promised I would have in Wales in order to follow the regional water authorities in England.
As to the election of the chairman I think I would be out of order if I were to engage in either condoning or criticising, as the right hon. Gentleman did, the provisions of the parent Act out of which this order comes. All I can say is that the right hon. Gentleman is about the only person in Wales who has ever suggested that Lord Brecon who will be appointed chairman is other than admirable for the job. When I announced my intention to appoint him the announcement received widespread acclamation throughout Wales.
The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned metering. He knows that the


authority when it is set up, together with the regional water authorities for England, has the discretionary power to introduce metering. Whether it can be democratically introduced depends on the views of the majority of the local authority members on the authority. I am sure that with the constitution provided in this order the Welsh authority established by it will be able to carry out efficiently and with proper regard to all concerned the management of water in Wales. I hope that the House will approve the order.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved.

That the Welsh National Water Development Authority (Establishment and Constitution) Order 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 19th July, be approved.

BUILDING (NOISE INSULATION REGULATIONS)

8.32 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Keith Speed): I beg to move, That the Noise Insulation Regulations 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 16th July, be approved.
During this parliamentary Session we have made progress towards securing a better balance between the provision of important transportation developments which benefit the whole community and the protection of the environment and of individuals against the adverse effects which such developments can cause.
The Government's White Paper "Development and Compensation, Putting People First", published in October of last year, outlined a new approach to the planning of major public developments and the compensation to which people could be entitled.
Allied to this White Paper was the publication of the report of the Urban Motorways Committee "New Roads in Towns", the conclusions of which were generally accepted by the Government. Since then we have seen the Land Compensation Act which gives effect to the proposals in our White Paper and which was welcomed on both sides of the House and has now become law. These noise insulation regulations made under Section 20 of that Act and relating to noise from new or improved highways carry the process one stage further.
However, I would not like the regulations to be taken out of context. They must be seen as part of our total approach aimed at reducing noise and other forms of pollution at source; at separating people from pollution by environmental planning; and at alleviating nuisance by improved design and remedial action. The provision of sound insulation in the future is a form of remedial action which comes into play where the total planning and design approach has not proved sufficient in containing noise from highways. The final stage in the process is, of course, injurious affection compensation which is now provided for under Part of the Land Compensation Act 1973.
Irrespective of the future, the need for sound insulation certainly exists in relation to some schemes designed before the new Urban Motorways Committee approach took effect.
We cannot go back and provide sound insulation along all roads opened in the past; the cost with a level of entitlement at 68dB(A) would be about £1,000 million and considerably more if we had a lower noise level figure. What we have done is to take the exceptional step and go back to 17th October 1969, three years before the publication of our White Paper. This is the same retrospective period applied by the injurious affection provisions of Part I of the Land Compensation Act.
Thus, whenever a new road was opened or an existing road was altered on or after that date and the resultant traffic noise affecting dwellings and other residential accommodation exceeds a specified level, highway authorities will be able to offer sound insulation under Regulation 4. In relation to roads and new carriageways opened after 16th October 1972 authorities will be obliged to offer it tinder Regulation 3.
My Department will generally operate the discretionary power in relation to trunk roads opened between October 1969 and October 1972 as though that discretionary power was mandatory. I want to emphasise this because certain Press reports have suggested that we shall be taking no action along the M6 at Birmingham, for example. That is not correct. Consultants are already preparing the noise map that will identify those properties eligible for treatment in


the Birmingham area. It is, of course, up to local authorities how they use the discretionary powers around these roads for which they are responsible. I turn now to the" specified level"—Regulation 2(1)—at which entitlement arises. The level we have adopted is 68dB(A) on the L10–18 hour—scale.
I do not want to go into great technical details but the L10–18 hour—index represents the average of the levels of noise exceeded for 10 per cent. of the time during each hour between 6 a.m. and midnight on any normal working day. This index has been shown to provide a meaningful correlation with social response and this noise level has the great advantage that it can usually be predicted. Thus it is possible to identify those dwellings that will be eligible and enable authorities to install sound insulation in time to mitigate construction nuisance.
Why have we adopted the 68 dB(A) level? The Noise Advisory Council recommended that existing residential development should not be subjected to more than 70 dB(A). It stressed, however, that this represented the limit of the acceptable. The Urban Motorways Committee supported this view.
In adopting the level of 68 dB(A) we have recognised those views. Furthermore, the regulations allow an authority to sound-insulate dwellings below this qualifying level if they are part of a building of which some other part is exposed to this level of noise. This will help to avoid leaving, for instance, one house in a terrace uninsulated because, strictly speaking, it was judged to be slightly under the qualifying noise level. A commonsense, flexible approach is needed.
The Government accept the recommendation of the Urban Motorways Committee that this level should be kept under review. We have instituted a comprehensive survey of public attitudes to noise and it may well be that when we have the results we shall think it right to make changes. At present, however, when there are many competing demands on limited resources for improved environmental quality, there is insufficient justification to prescribe a definitive standard lower than 68 dB(A).
Indeed, since traffic noise at the opening of a road can be 3 dB(A) below that experienced when the road is used to its design capacity, entitlement could arise when the actual level experienced is only 65 dB(A).
Schedule 1(4), which describes the technical approach to be used in predicting or measuring noise, also requires the calculations to be rounded up to the nearest whole decibel.
Schedule 2 to the regulations may appear complicated but it provides a package treatment for dwellings capable of reducing internal noise levels by about 35 dB(A) from that experienced outside. Since the apparent loudness of noise doubles every 10 dB(A), this is a significant reduction. Trials have been carried out in a flat kindly lent by Birmingham Corporation in which officials of my Department's Building Research Establishment have installed insulation to the specification outlined in this schedule and such an attenuation of 35 dB(A) was measured. To put it in a different way, the flat is about 20 to 25 metres from the M6 motorway and the effect of putting in this double glazing with ventilation, and so on, is equivalent to moving the flat to over 500 metres from it. That shows what a considerable reduction in noise this achieves.
Perhaps I should explain that, to be effective, sound insulation requires windows to be kept shut, and this will restrict airflow and influence indoor temperature. Hence, supplementary ventilation is necessary, but the ventilator units must not allow the noise to penetrate; otherwise, there is no benefit.
Manufacturers have been made aware of our proposals and at recent meetings with officials they have expressed a keen desire to produce the goods. I would add that, as the ventilator units must contain a filter, the worst effects of dust should be excluded. This could be particularly important during the construction stage of roads. While such ventilation will be sufficient for normal conditions, overheating might still result in southerly facing rooms. Research work has shown that the best way of reducing this is to insert venetian blinds between the panes of double glazing, which was done at Douglas House.
The Agrement Board will certify that the ventilator units meet the specifications and will seek assurances as to continued quality control. The specifications have been discussed with such bodies as the British Gas Corporation and have been approved by them.
The regulations prescribe the procedure and the time limits within which offers have to be made and accepted. The highway authority is required under Regulation 8 to offer sound insulation to owners and occupiers. I believe this is important.
Residents, whether owner-occupiers or tenants, do not have to find out how to claim sound insulation. They are offered it. Nor need they pay anything. The reasonable cost limits which will be applied under Regulation 11 and which can be adjusted to take account of current prices will enable the highway authority to provide the necessary insulation at its own expense. Residents could, however, make private arrangements to have the work carried out and claim grant. I expect the annual cost of insulation to be about £5 million with an additional nonrecurring expenditure of £10 million for schemes opened since October 1969. Local authority expenditure will be eligible for grant within the normal framework of the grant rules.
Regulation 6 prescribes that authorities shall produce a map or list identifying the dwellings which are to be treated, and I urge them to do this and make their offer wherever they can before construction commences. This will not only enable buildings to be insulated against construction noise, but the map would also help in assessing the impact of new highway development.
Regulation 5 provides a special power for authorities to insulate dwellings which will be severely affected for a substantial period of time by noise from construction works, even though this may not be maintained once the road comes into use. One local social survey conducted on behalf of the Urban Motorways Committee showed that nearly half of those questioned considered the construction period produced effects worse than those after the road was opened. I am sure that hon. Members, from their own experience, will agree with that. This power is an alternative to temporary

reaccommodation or acquisition by agreement under Part II of the Land Compensation Act.
The regulations are intended to come into operation on 1st September, but we shall not wait till then to start work. Circulars and an explanatory booklet which will be made available to qualifying residents are in hand, and I mentioned earlier the preparatory calculations being undertaken in Birmingham that will enable an early start to be made in that area.
I have mentioned some of the most important features of the regulations. To the best of our knowledge, this scheme is unique in its extent and application. No other country imposes such obligations on its highway authorities. We are therefore breaking new ground and, as with all such innovations, only time will show whether changes are necessary. I have already stressed that the level of entitlement, the technical specifications in Schedule 1 and 2 and the cost levels will be kept under review. I believe that the regulations arc a major environmental step forward and will enable us to deal quickly and effectively with the cases needing priority attention.

8.43 p.m.

Mr. J. R. Kinsey: My hon. Friend the Minister has gone quite a long way to reassure me and the people in my constituency who are affected by the M6-M5 link. I thought that his halo was slipping when I read the reports in the local Press. We have given him rather saintly qualities. We thought he was a saviour in helping people who were experiencing noise nuisance after the new motorway was built.
I welcome my hon. Friend's assurance that the compensation provision still stands. The reason for the concern of local people is the report which appeared in the newspapers. They know that from October 1972 highway authorities were obliged to compensate them, but they were concerned about the three-year period from October 1969 to 1972. Local authorities have a discretion under the statutory instrument. However, we thought that it would be a great improvement if "may" in paragraph 4 on page 5 were altered to "will". In the circumstances, we are unable to amend an


order and it was thus reported in the Birmingham Evening Mail as a discretion on the part of local authorities whether to pay this. That has caused great concern in the area. How badly the people in the district felt was shown when Mrs. Robinson, of Parkwood Croft, which is very close to the motorway, immediately wrote to the Prime Minister as follows:
With the M6 only 53 feet from our front window I am sure that no one would want to buy our property. It is true that the Government have tried to help the noise problem by erecting a barrier to try to reduce it. We have heard from Keith Speed that this is supposed to have reduced the noise by eight decibels, but I would like to know from where these noise readings were taken, certainly not from our bedrooms which are on the same level as the motorway and are affected the most. Now another bomb shell has fallen on our lives. We have read in the Birmingham Mail that soundproofing measures for which we have pioneered and fought cannot affect us and we are to be excluded from the new regulations that come into force on September 1st.
In her final paragraph Mrs. Robinson said:
I implore you that when the new regulations are debated next week in the House of Commons please, please allow them to include us.
That is a plea that affects many of the thrifty people in the area who cannot open their windows at night along the motorway because of the noise nuisance that penetrates their homes, even with the barriers. Mrs. Robinson makes the point in her letter to the Prime Minister that her children, who have sweltered in the warm summer we have had, have not been able to open the windows to cool down the rooms because of that nuisance.
In the circumstances, there should be no doubt about people's rights to compensation. The Minister agrees, and I am pleased to have his assurances, that these are practically mandatory in the regulations. These people are entitled to compensation and they should be considered. They are entitled because they are still being affected, despite the test barriers. Although we welcome the barriers in the area, the proximity to the houses in certain instances actually provides privacy to the houses. That factor was never considered when the barriers were erected. Only the noise level was considered.
Another side effect has been to stop papers from coming into the roads and

front gardens. But the noise at times is almost as bad as it was previously. I welcome my hon. Friend's letter in which he told me recently about the way in which the Government were relying on reducing noise levels in my constituency. I am grateful that he should choose Perry Barr to be the area where the test barriers were put up as a forerunner for the rest of the nation. At the same time as in certain areas the Government have provided help in the gardens, the question must be asked: if people are entitled to the barriers, are they not also entitled to double glazing?
I have mentioned Parkwood Croft, but equally affected are parts of my constituency with houses along Grindleford Road, Hathersay Road and Thornbridge Avenue and many others. The people want double glazing not because they want to jump on the bandwagon but because it is important to the enjoyment of their homes. Again, as Mrs. Robinson said, the noise is at bedroom level. That level gets most of the noise. Although the barriers disperse noise at a lower level, it is not always taken over the facades of the bedrooms of the houses.
My hon. Friend spoke of 6 am till midnight as the testing period, but most of the complaints we receive concern the night. Will the Minister consider another formula that would apply at a lower level than 68 dB(A) from midnight till 6 am? Invariably, all the people in the area quote the magic hour of 4 am as the time when everyone living along the motorway seems to be awakened as though by a giant alarm clock when the motorway traffic speeds up again.
If the occupants do not like the new noises by which they are affected in their homes, and if that noise is below 68 dB(A), can they apply for compensation to move, and get it? Do they have to be pestered with a 68 dB(A) level? We in Birmingham thought that the level should be 65. I know the Minister put it at 70 originally but, although we were pleased to have a reduction of 2 dB(A), there is still a feeling that it should be down to 65 dB(A).
On occasions in the House, as we all know, the quality of noise can change, depending on who is making the noise and what sort of noise it is. When tests are taken, are they carried out at times when prevailing winds might be driving


the noise into people's properties, or on other occasions when the wind is taking the noise in another direction and someone else is being bothered? Is the motorway noise to be tested during a rainy period—rain makes a difference—when the noise of tyres seems to reach a different pitch?
It is strange that in the still of the evening the noise seems to hang in an area and the types of vehicles using the motorway make a difference, despite the 68 dB(A) limit. If it is in the night when the vehicles provide this startling tone to wake one, there is then the problem of getting back to sleep when one is not in a drowsy state. All these factors should be considered.
If people's claims are turned down by the highway authorities, is there any right of appeal? Will an appeal be proposed? How long will it be before the efficiency of the proposals can be tested on behalf of the local residents? 1st September is the commencement date, but when do the workmen start moving in? That is what the people in the area want to know. If they are entitled, when will they have the men in to do the job? The matter is most urgent to those affected.
On page 8. under the heading
Buildings to which these regulations apply
the regulations specify
dwellings, and other buildings used for residential purposes".
A school in the area is badly affected. Do the regulations cover a school, or is it exempt? If it is exempt, will it be brought in under another form of regulation?
Paragraph 9(2), on page 11, says that work cannot be carried out on a room where there is installed any flueless combustion appliance other than a gas cooker, unless there will be in that room after completion of the insulation work an uninsulated window capable of being opened. Who provides the uninsulated window or, if it is not possible to put in an uninsulated window because of the noise factor affecting it, are the Government prepared to have some other form of heating put in? The motorway is the cause and, again, the onus should not be on the residents to prove it.
Paragraph 11 of the regulation states that
the actual cost incurred by the claimant or the reasonable cost which would have been incurred by the highway authority".
There are different standards in homes. If somebody has taken the trouble to install exceptionally good woodwork and fittings, is that cost to be ignored in bringing the double-glazing into tone with that cost, or will a reasonable figure be applied that leaves the resident to spend an extra amount to restore his home to the previous standard?
I am sorry to have given my hon. Friend such details and to appear as though I am carping. I am here to protect the interests of my constituents, and they are worried. We realise that there was no previous legislation, because we have been trying for this since the inception of the motorway. We have, however, welcomed the Government's proposals and the retrospective legislation which has given my hon. Friend such a saintly quality in the area. But those who were hopeful have now had cause for doubt. May I ask my hon. Friend whether he is really restoring their trust in him?

8.56 p.m.

Mr. Speed: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Bar (Mr. Kinsey) for the various questions he has asked. I know the considerable difficulties his constituents and other constituents in north and east Birmingham have had as a result of the M6 motorway and I know of the considerable amount of work my hon. Friend has done on behalf of his constituents in making constant and proper representations to myself and my right hon. Friends.
I recall a large meeting we had in my hon. Friend's constituency not long ago at which I explained the regulations. I hope I am now restored to the celestial station that my hon. Friend assigned to me earlier, because I have said on many occasions that, although there was the discretionary power extending back to October 1969—this will be maintained for local authorities—the Government, namely, the Department of the Environment as highway authority, regard this as mandatory for its schemes. I am sorry that there were people, including constituents of my hon. Friend, who were


misled and obviously worried by inaccurate Press reports. If the Press had bothered to check with me, they would have obtained an answer very quickly at that time.
My hon. Friend mentioned the question of barriers. I stress that the barriers in his constituency are experimental. Measurements have been taken from a number of different areas. This raises a problem because, as my hon. Friend knows, barriers do not attenuate sound in the same way as double glazing—nothing like as much; probably something between 8 and 12 decibels. Nevertheless, a barrier has the advantage, as my hon. Friend said, that it gives some privacy to certain houses. It induces lower noise levels in gardens, and this may be important where people want to sit, or children play.
On the other hand, with barriers there are the aesthetic problems. Not everybody likes the sight of a barrier, and this can be something people object to. There are maintenance problems which are greater than the problems of maintaining double glazing in houses. Therefore, it is inevitably a compromise and I visualise situations where a soundproof barrier is the answer, particularly where people regard sitting in the garden and the external environment as important.
I can understand the other situations where a soundproof barrier is not the answer. As my hon. Friend said, there are the problems of second, third or fourth storeys, because the higher one goes the less effective a soundproof barrier becomes. I therefore believe that we must look at every situation on its merits, and we will be guided greatly by the local authorities—and, indeed, by hon. Members—who are in the best position to know what the local residents want. In many cases the question of cost will not be critical. It may be more expensive in certain cases to have double-glazing, and in others it may be more expensive to have a soundproof barrier.
There is no provision at present for an appeal. Basically, everybody affected should be contacted and given an offer by the highway authority. Where my Department is the highway authority, it may often be a local authority acting as our agents.
If anyone believes that he has an entitlement and has not received an offer, he can question the authority saying, "I believe I am entitled". He would then have to be furnished with a written statement explaining why he was not entitled.
We have been in touch with the Council on Tribunals and other bodies on this question, and we shall be watching the situation to see how many cases might be disputed. However, I must tell my hon. Friend that these techniques are still at a relatively early stage and it is difficult to be hard and fast about the matter. After a reasonable period, we shall review the situation to see what, if anything, needs to be done. At present, anyone who does not receive an offer and feels that he is entitled to one should receive a written statement explaining why an offer has not been made.
We are now talking about residential property. The problems of schools, offices and other places are serious but they do not come within these regulations.
My hon. Friend mentioned problems concerning the 65 dB level which I know Birmingham wanted. I have pointed out that although we fix the level at 68, which is two below the Advisory Council's 70, and therefore the scheme is that much more costly, in practical terms this can mean 65, especially in the opening stages of a road scheme. In practical terms it might even mean 64.5 in certain circumstances, as we round up.
Bearing in mind the not inconsiderable costs which the regulations will involve, and the technical problems, I consider that the 68 dB level that we have fixed is a good compromise in all the circumstances. I hope that my hon. Friend and his constituents will feel that it will cover the situation.
My hon. Friend mentioned gas cookers, covered on page 11 of the regulations. These types of gas cooker are being phased out on conversion to North Sea gas.
He asked—it is part and parcel of the same problem how much money should be paid if someone wanted a better quality job than might be considered appropriate by the highway authority. If someone wishes to have an especially good job, for example, a particularly expensive form of window fitting, that person, under various limits that will be


established, would be paid the cost that would be incurred by the local authority doing a job of reasonable quality for that house. If someone wishes to have deluxe fittings over and above that, he will have to make up the difference himself. I consider that to be not unreasonable, for there must be some yardstick. A similar yardstick has been applied to other schemes, for instance to airport problems.
My hon. Friend mentioned wind and rain and the whole subject of measurement. I know that Schedule 1 is complicated, but I ask him to read page 19.
He also referred to the vexed question, which has been mentioned to me in the Birmingham area, of the build-up of traffic from four o'clock in the morning onwards. All my expert advice, of which we have a great deal coming in, although we are still at the threshold of the technology in the subject, is that the present L10 scale and time limits I have given give the best answer in the circumstances.
I am not saying that we shall not have to change our schemes as the technology of acoustics develops, but I do not believe that my hon. Friend's constituents, or anyone else, will lose from the use of this L10 scale. It is closely detailed in the schedules.
I hope that I have covered the points raised, for they are of serious concern to my hon. Friend's constituents. We are working as fast as we can on the prediction map. We are in touch with the manufacturers. The regulations come into effect on 1st September and I hope that we may start getting hardware installed alongside the houses on the M6 in Birmingham before the end of the year. Much work, time and money are already being spent by my officials to that end.
When the regulations come into effect, I hope that by the end of the year we shall start to make an impact on the social problem posed in the West Midlands and other areas.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Noise Insulation Regulations 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 16th July, be approved.

AGRICULTURE ACT 1967 (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS

9.5 p.m.

The Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Anthony Stodart): I beg to move,
That the Agriculture Act 1967 (Amendment) Regulations 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 11th July, be approved.
I suggest that we also discuss the following schemes:
That the Farm Amalgamations Scheme 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 11th July, be approved.
That the Farm Structure (Payments to Out-goers) Scheme 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 11th July, be approved.
When I introduced the existing farm structure schemes, which these proposals will replace, I said that they should be looked on as being interim as we should be taking a long hard look at the working of the scheme generally. We have done this and as a result we are satisfied that the basic concept of the existing schemes is sound.
I am sure that the House will be pleased to know that as a result of the changes introduced in 1970 there has been a speeding up in the rates at which approvals have been made.
The new schemes, therefore, do not depart from the concepts and aims of the present schemes, but in the light of experience there are a number of improvements which we can now make to the terms and conditions.
The new powers enable payments to be made for amalgamations which are carried out by leasing extra land as well as by buying it. In order to qualify for payment, an amalgamation by lease must involve a term of not less than 12 years.
Payments, too, will now be made to an outgoer who gives up land for afforestation or for public use as well as in cases where all the land goes for a farm amalgamation. There have in the past been cases where it was clear that the best use for all or part of the outgoer's land was not for farming but for forestry, and we shall now be able to make a payment to the outgoer in respect of that land. But, as a safeguard against undesirable planting, payment will not be made on land released for forestry unless


it is more suitable for that purpose than for farming and can be released for planting without detriment to the agricultural use of neighbouring land. The reference to land released for public use, will facilitate land being used for recreation or nature reserves where appropriate.
The third amendment enables a test to be based on an outgoer's income from agriculture in general rather than just from the land that he is giving up. I think this is a useful extension which will widen the sphere of eligibility.
At present amalgamations receive a special rate of grant under the Farm Capital Grant Scheme if there is a need for new buildings, roads or other remodelling work. Instead of these special grants, however, we propose that where an outgoer's grant has also been approved all the amalgamations will receive an acreage payment of £12·50 on the additional acreage obtained from the project up to a maximum grant of £1,250. This will make for a simpler scheme and quicker payments. The new system will allow farmers to make their own decisions on capital investment and it will also make help available to more farmers.
Amalgamators will still have to maintain the amalgamated unit and not change its agricultural use without the Minister's consent for five years, but, whereas this requirement now has to be registered as a land charge, under the powers conferred in the 1972 Act administrative provision will be made for the requirement to be personally binding on the amalgamator.
We have also materially increased the incentives offered, particularly for the older age groups. We have amended the requirement on entitlement to occupation. At present, to qualify, an outgoer must have been entitled to occupy his farm on or before 5th August 1965. The new scheme provides a later date-1st January 1973. Tests on the outgoer's income have also been modified. At present, one takes account of the husband and wife's combined income. In future only an applicant's earned income will come into it, and we propose to pay grant to those whose other income does not exceed that from farming by more than £500. This will be a great help for those in areas of the United Kingdom who, while spending most of their time farming, have

to take other work to secure a better family income. A further condition of grant is that to qualify for the main grant outgoers should have spent not less than half of their working hours in farming during the five years before they put in their application.
Having regard to the scales proposed for the main grant, it is fair enough that they should be restricted to bona fide farmers. We feel that we must provide for the man who has, for some good reason, temporarily had to let his land and later finds that he cannot return to farming. In such cases grant will be available if he otherwise qualifies, provided that he has met this condition in respect of one year.
The last change is not unimportant. As the objective is to release more land for amalgamation, we feel we must give some incentive to part-time farmers to give up their land. Therefore we are proposing a smaller grant for those who cannot qualify under the income and agricultural labour tests.
This will take the form of an acreage payment at the rate of £10 on each eligible acre, subject to a maximum grant of £1,000. Farms of the kind that this grant is intended to cover will, if released, make a useful contribution to the aims of the scheme and it will be of particular assistance in such areas as Northern Ireland and parts of Scotland and Wales.
Allowing for the larger number of applications expected to result from the new and improved schemes, the new incentive and modifications proposed will lead to an estimated additional cost of about £11 million for the first five years of the scheme.
The better incentives offered by the two schemes and the new terms and conditions should do much both to attract a larger number of small farmers to give up their land for amalgamation and to encourage others to enlarge their existing units. This will help the farmers concerned and also improve the productivity of agriculture.
It may interest the House to know that the scheme has been used successfully over a wide area of the United Kingdom. Of all the approvals for amalgamation, 49 per cent. have been


granted in England, 25 per cent. in Scotland, 13 per cent. in Wales and 13 per cent. in Northern Ireland. So far as grants to outgoers are concerned there have been 40 per cent. in England, 33 per cent. in Scotland—where, particularly in the North-East this has been an immensely successful scheme-15 per cent. in Northern Ireland and 12 per cent. in Wales.
Therefore, I hope, that the House will approve these schemes and the related regulations so that we can give effect to the new arrangements in September.

9.13 p.m.

Mr. David Clark: In discussing these regulations we are discussing not a new concept but the continuation or improvement, as the Minister says, of existing schemes. Generally in most industries throughout the world there has been an enlargement of units. The agriculture industry has been no exception. We all want the British farmer and the British farm worker to earn their true worth. If this helps in that process, we agree with it.
There are, however, one or two points about which we should elicit a little more information. There have been changing circumstances in the past few years which may cause people to quibble about certain aspects of the scheme. The first point is that this is not something confined to Britain. The problem exists throughout the world, especially in Europe. We have seen in Europe a great programme of amalgamations. Many of us feel that the amalgamations and the concentration of farming communities have not proceeded fast enough, but they have their own schemes to encourage farmers to form larger units. I wonder whether any of the common agricultural fund is used to finance this series of amalgamations in Britain as in France and other European countries.
Another worrying fact is that there have been changes in the past few years and one of them has been in the land ownership of farmland in Britain. This has caused a great deal of concern, not least amongst the farming community. One has only to read the farmers' various journals to find the letter columns therein concerned about this problem where land prices have shot up to an astronomical level. They have created farms which

are at paper value very high yet when the farmer dies his son faces almost impossible and crippling estate duties. This escalation or explosion in land values does not help the farming industry.
We must try to ascertain whether these schemes, and previous schemes, help to accentuate this move. While we, on the one hand, want an efficient farming community and accept that in many cases farms must be bigger, we are concerned to ensure that those farms are not always owned by City institutions or by foreign banks. This problem is not confined to Britain. The Danes only a matter of weeks ago introduced very stringent controls on the ownership of farm land.
Will the Minister comment whether, when he was drawing up these new arrangements in this scheme, he considered the possibility of allowing encouragement only where the new farm was to be owned or managed by a farmer and not to be used to facilitate some further capital investment? It seems to us not good for the future if we find these big financial institutions buying up farmland, not primarily to farm, for at the rate of return possible from farming, in spite of welcome increases in farmers' incomes over the last few years, they cannot get the return which they would get in the cities.
It has been commented that on the present trend of farm amalgamations, and the change of ownership, by the end of the century nine-tenths of the farmers in this country will be working for city institutions. This may be an exaggerated claim but it has been made. I am sure the Minister has seen it in the farming Press.
To turn to a different aspect of the order, the Minister mentioned that these schemes affect land which is going into afforestation. This is something which we on this side of the House welcome, because there has been a great deal of concern about the lack of land going into afforestation. This problem has been made worse since June 1970. The forestry industry in this country has felt a little sterile. Having seen the Government's consultative paper, it has waited for 13 months for a statement on the Government's forestry policy. We are still waiting. As a result there has been a drying up of land being provided


for afforestation. Could the Minister give us an estimate whether he feels that these schemes, which allow land to be released for afforestation, will help? The problem is very serious. The Forestry Commission throughout Britain is drawing upon its reserves. The result has been that in this year—Plant a Tree Year, ironically—the new planting by the Forestry Commission has fallen from 57,000 trees in 1971 to 51,000 in 1973. Many of us feel that that is not good for the forestry industry, or for the economy of the country as a whole. Of course, the Forestry Commission's task has been made more difficult by the increase in land prices and not least for all the reasons which I have explained.
The Minister said that land would not be eligible for a grant if it was to be used for afforestation unless the Minister judged that it was more suitable for afforestation than it was for agriculture. That is a fairly sensible rule. It has been a rule which has been applied de facto if not dejure to the Forestry Commission's acquisitions over the past few years, but it has not been applied to private forestry. That has been one of the reasons for the outcry against afforestation. There has been much public concern about the afforestation of good private agricultural land about which the Minister had no say. Does the new scheme apply to the private sector as well as to the State sector?
The next point which the Minister raised was land which is released for public use. That is something which we very much welcome. I query one point —namely, if land in a national park is to be released to the national park authority for recreational purposes, does the farmer as well as the national park authority purchasing the land get a grant out of the public purse for that purpose?
The Opposition welcome public access and the general development of amenities and recreational facilities. But while we all want more efficient farming communities, We are concerned that in certain parts of the country the landscape of which we are all fond—I am thinking of the upland areas in the national parks—is dependent on the living farming community. No one should be unaware of that point. The Opposition are worried that it may well be that with increased

aids there will be a change in the farming community and in the landscape that will not always be desirable.
I query one or two technical points. As I understand it, the idea is to get amalgamation to aim at 600 standard man days. That is a sensible, useful and viable farming organisation. I am trying to ascertain whether a grant is payable if a new unit is formed which comprises less than 600 standard man days. If that is the case, difficulties might arise in certain parts of the country. I have tried to get some random statistics for North Westmorland and parts of the Lake District. The statistics show that no less than 68 per cent. of the farms in North Westmorland are classified as having less than 600 standard man days.
If the figures are broken down, no less than 35 per cent. of the farms have less than 450 man days. That is when there are taken into account all farms over 250 standard man days and there are ignored the smaller farms which would be included under the scheme and which complicate the matter further. That means that in many parts of the upland areas there are a considerable percentage of farms of less than 300 standard man days. Therefore, one might get a situation where two farms of less than 300 standard man days are to be merged. In that instance, would the farms be eligible for the grant?
Generally we welcome these proposals, but we are worried about the changing situation of farm ownership and the possible effect on the environment. We dope that the Minister will keep under continuous review the effect of the scheme, because if there is any danger urgent action would be needed to remedy it.

9.25 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Worsley: I start by declaring an interest as an owner of agricultural and forestry land.
I think that the instruments will help the amalgamation scheme forward, and that is desirable. But the Government are pursuing two diametrically opposed policies. The instruments are designed to make amalgamations easier. However, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is pursuing a taxation policy on capital which will have the opposite effect.
The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. David Clark) was right to make the point that the effect of the explosion in land values is to drive the traditional owner, whether he be farmer or land owner, away from the ownership of land and, too often, to put the ownership in the hands of bodies which have little sympathy with the land or interest in the social life that goes on in the area.
I am not suggesting that new money should not come into agriculture. That is not my point. However, a tragic process seems to be going on as a result of the explosion in land values and the combination of estate duty and capital gains tax—above all, the latter—which is reversing a situation whereby the ownership and occupation of land, which should be united, are increasingly being forced apart.
If current taxation policies continue, all the good that the scheme can bring about will be undone—indeed, more than undone—by capital taxation, which will mean that the current economic farm will have astronomic capital taxation liabilities to meet. Inevitably the result will be a splitting of holdings, which is the exact opposite of the policy embodied in the scheme. The Government must get their right and left hands working together and evolve a capital taxation policy that works with, not against, the scheme.
My second point, again in response to the hon. Member for Colne Valley, is on forestry. It is over a year now since we had one of the most ill-thought out of Government White Paper's for many a year on this subject. It is sad that 12 months later we still have no statement from the Government about their policy on this subject. Forestry is not a large industry, but it matters very much in terms of amenity and employment in upland areas. There has at last been the working through of what has been obvious to anyone who has studied forestry on a world scale—an impending shortage of timber of fantastic dimension. The result has been a tremendous rise in world prices of timber reflected in an equally tremendous rise in prices in this country. It must be obvious, even to the members of the Treasury, who always fail to understand the nature of forestry, what it is about and what its purposes and problems are,

that a native timber industry matters in a time of increasing shortage.
I realise that my hon. Friend cannot say anything about this matter tonight, and I am not asking him to do so. But I ask that the Government put a forestry policy higher in their order of priorities and realise that even since the publication of the White Paper the whole economy of forestry has changed radically. The increasing world shortage of timber has shown that we must use the forestry resources of this country as best we can.
We can grow trees as well as anywhere on earth. It is up to the Government to encourage tree-growing.
I do not oppose the new scheme but to have an effective policy of amalgamation without a policy of capital taxation, which is related to it, is to condemn our agriculture to a gradual lessening of the size of holdings when we should be encouraging an increase.

9.32 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. David Clark) said that the average size of farm was increasing and that the whole structure of farming was changing. Some 20 years ago the average size of farm in Britain was about 60 acres. It is now 162 acres. It is interesting to note that the average size of farms which have been subject to amalgamation is now 228 acres, a little above the average. That is a good sign.
The hon. Member referred to institutions buying land. There is no sign of any great tendency, and it would be wrong to exaggerate the extent of land purchased by institutions and companies. Indeed, only a small proportion of our land—and that is outside the scope of the scheme—is being bought by such bodies.
The disadvantage of any restriction is that it would make things more difficult for the would-be outgoer who wants to retire. It would lower the price that he could get. This would discourage amalgamations in one way. One has to retain a balance. I agree that the more we can maintain and increase owner-occupation, the better.
Another question concerned land sold into public use and whether there would be additional payments. The answer is that no compensation for releasing land


for public use would be made where it would merely duplicate the provisions under Acts of land compensation. It is not a case of getting it both ways.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the 600 standard man-day farms. If the formation of a 600 standard man-day farm is not possible in one step, we can approve what we term an intermediate amalgamation if there are prospects of a commercial unit being formed ultimately. In other words, it does not have to be done in one jump. If there is a good prospect, one can get the land grant.
Land values are a very considerable problem. I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley) said about them. I would remind my hon. Friend that taxation is not a matter within my immediate purview, but I do not think that anyone has done more to reform the tax system than my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. My hon. Friend will be aware that my right hon. Friend is at the moment engaged in a review of problems of the kind my hon. Friend mentioned.
A certain amount was said about afforestation and land use. It is a subject which is very dear to my heart and I must not make a long speech about it now. But I accept what was said by both my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and the hon. Member for Colne Valley. The review of forestry has been going on for a very long time. It is in fact the first major look at the industry to have taken place for 30 years.
The problems have not been made easier by the fact that land for forestry has become extremely scarce. That is largely due to the increase in the returns which people are getting from farming on hill land. There was a time not so long ago when very large acreages of land were planted wholesale with trees. I do not believe that to be good land use. I want to see trees planted where they will grow best and where they will integrate and play a useful part with agriculture. I have always opposed those who talk about farming or forestry. I have always been a strong advocate of forestry helping farming in making the best use of land in a very densely populated island whose land is decreasing remorselessly at

the rate of 60,000 acres every year. I hope that before long we shall be able to make an announcement about the future forestry programme.
The hon. Member for Colne Valley asked about FEOGA. These schemes will in certain cases attract FEOGA money. They have been designed to take account of the Community's provisions for encouraging amalgamations. Therefore, in certain cases they will attract FEOGA grants. But we shall of course be laying the appropriate order before the House in due course—we hope in the autumn—when we shall be able to discuss these matters.

Mr. David Clark: May I press the hon. Gentleman on the subject of his approval for land use for forestry? Does what he said apply to private as well as to State forestry in order for it to receive the benefit of this money?

Mr. Stodart: In terms of the regulations it can be private land going into private amalgamations. Where private interests are involved, as they will be in this case, ministerial approval will be required.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Agriculture Act 1967 (Amendment) Regulations 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 11th July, be approved.

Resolved,

That the Farm Amalgamations Scheme 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 11th July, be approved.—[Mr. Anthony Stodart.]

Resolved,

That the Farm Structure (Payments to Out-goers) Scheme 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 11th July, be approved.—[Mr. Anthony Stodart.]

LAND COMPENSATION (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Monro.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

The Chairman: Does any hon. Member wish to raise a point on any of the clauses?

Mr. Norman Buchan: I should like to raise a point, Sir Robert.

The Chairman: On which clause?

Mr. Buchan: Perhaps I may raise it on a point of order, Sir Robert. It might be useful if I could make one or two observations and refer to them in a kind of Third Reading way.

The Chairman: Unless the hon. Member has a specific point he wishes to raise on a clause—

Mr. Buchan: I wish only to raise the Third Reading situation, Sir Robert. That is all.

The Chairman: Therefore, I shall put the Question, That the Clauses stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 1 to 83 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Buchan: Mr. Buchan rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I have to put the Question forthwith, without debate, there being no contrary motion on the Order Paper. I cannot take anything but a point of order.

Mr. Buchan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is a little difficult now to come to the Bill, but certain things have arisen. First, the Bill has been largely discussed in Committee in another form. That is why it took this form tonight. My point of order is whether it would be possible in future, when this kind of thing happens, not to deal with the content of what I want to say about the Bill—as I can write to the Minister—but to find some mechanism without going through the normal procedures with the Mace. That might be helpful.
Secondly, I should like to know when the regulations relating to Clause 18 will be brought in. Perhaps the Minister will write to me about that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that I cannot hear any more on this subject.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

STATUTE LAW REVISION (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

9.43 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Michael Havers): I beg to move, That the Bill be read now a Second time.
The Bill was considered by the Joint Committee in June. The Statute Law Committee in Northern Ireland is anxious to complete the revised statutes, taking the position up to date to 1970. This is necessary to clear away the dead wood so that those revised statutes cat be completed.
Clause 2 is a little unusual. This arises due to the Civil Evidence (Northern Ireland) Act 1971. When originally drafted it sought to amend the law in Northern Ireland in the same way as the 1968 Act had done in England and Wales, and to repeal two limited exceptions t.) the rule about hearsay evidence and replace them with comprehensive provisions. In the event a new thought was taken about it. As a result of the change of policy just before the Bill was about to be presented to the Parliament of Northern Ireland, it was decided to wait until experience in England and Wales showed whether it was desirable that that should take place in Northern Ireland. The experience will follow our 1968 Act.
When this was done the draftsman overlooked the need to narrow down the repeal provisions in the Bill, and he repealed too much. Thus the existing Civil Evidence Act, so far as hearsay evidence was concerned, was repealed. This is merely correcting an oversight which then occurred. No retrospection arises out of this change. In every other respect it is a perfectly normal Statute Law Revision Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.[Sir P. Bryan.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS

Order read for resumed adjourned debate on Question—[23rd July].

Ordered,

That it is expedient that the scheme for limiting the number of Questions that may be tabled for oral answer, the operation of which was recommended for an experimental period by the Select Committee on Parliamentary Questions in the last Session of Parliament in paragraph 19 of their Report, to which this House agreed on 18th December last, be continued beyond the end of the present Session. —[Sir P. Bryan.]

SEPARATED MILK

9.48 p.m.

Mr. Michael English: I beg to move,
That the Separated Milk Regulations 1973 (S.I., 1973, No. 369), dated 28th February 1973, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th March, be withdrawn.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): Perhaps it will be convenient to discuss at the same time the related motion,
That the Separated Milk (Scotland) Regulations 1973 (S.I., 1973, No. 914), dated 8th May 1973, a copy of which was laid before this House on 24th May, be withdrawn.

Mr. English: Hon. Members will recollect that on 9th July I endeavoured to debate in the House the Separated Milk Regulations.
Several questions need to be asked in connection with the regulations. First, I wish to ask why the regulations are necessary. They are supposed to he regulations implementing EEC regulation 1411/71. That regulation states:
This regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
I am well aware that, in part, there is derogation in respect of the United Kingdom because, under the Treaty of Accession, for reasons I will come to shortly, there was a derogation from that regulation. This may be the reason, but I should like it better explained than it has been so far. No explanatory memorandum attached to the English or Scottish regulations makes the situation clear.
The English regulations were made on 29th February, laid before Parliament on 9th March and came into operation on 1st April. They are in the name of the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Social Services. The Scottish regulations were made on 8th May, laid on 24th May and came into operation on 14th June.
When the English regulations came out, the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments included them in its list of statutory instruments which it did not draw to the special attention of both

Houses. This is rather odd, because, in its Tenth Report, it drew to the special attention of both Houses the Scottish regulations, which are almost identical.
Therefore, my first criticism might be directed at the sources of information of the Joint Committee. It seems that that Committee was not fully informed, in the case of the English regulations, of what it was informed about in the case of the Scottish regulations. I do not know who advised the Committee possibly your Counsel, Mr. Speaker—but whoever it was did not give the Committee the information in the case of the English regulations which he gave in the case of the Scottish regulations.
In its report, the Joint Committee produced some valid criticisms of the Scottish regulations. Its basic criticisms are twofold. It drew the special attention of both Houses to the regulations on the grounds
… that they make an unexpected use of the powers conferred by the statute under which they are laid, that their form and purport call for elucidation and on other grounds which do not impinge on their merits or the policy behind them".
The Committee's first criticism was that many of the definitions in both sets of regulations are made by reference to definitions in the EEC regulations. So it is impossible to determine the law by looking solely at the English and Scottish regulations. But it added that both sets of regulations relate to EEC regulation 1411/71,
… as replaced or amended by any subset quent directly applicable Community instrument ".
So this would be changed, as a result of some amendment in Brussels and nobody would be aware, from reading the English or Scottish regulations, that the law had changed.
I would draw a particular case to the Parliamentary Secretary's attention. In the NEDO document," Milk and Milk Products ", in its "United Kingdom Farming in the Common Market" series, it is pointed out that there is a special amendment to the EEC regulation. It gives the reference L233 / 12 in the legislative series of the Official Journal of 16th October 1971. The problem is that that reference is obviously wrong. Having looked it up—it exists in French but not in English—I find that it relates to rice.

What is even more interesting is this: if it were passed on 16th October 1971, there was an amendment already well in existence before the English and Scottish regulations were laid, and that has not been mentioned.
To assist the Minister to trace it—I am sorry I cannot give the exact reference, for the reasons I have explained—it is the one which allowed Channel Islands milk at a higher butterfat content than standard milk in the Common Market. That is obviously very important not only to the Channel Islands but, because their milk is sold here, to us as well.
If the NEDO in an excellent series of publications can make a mistake, and if it is almost impossible for anybody in the Library of the Honse to trace it, how on earth are other people supposed to trace the changes in these laws and to know them and to obey them? We are making a law almost impossible for people to obey.
The situation is even rather worse than that. The regulations themselves do not seem to be wholly clear. Since 1 represent an English constituency I will take the English regulations, but I think my argument applies equally to the Scottish ones. The regulations say that it shall be an offence to
deliver, or cause or permit to be delivered, on or in pursuance of any sale for human consumption any separated milk which is not semi-skimmed milk or skimmed milk delivered, in either case, as such.
The definition is that
'milk' has the same meaning as in regulation No. 1411/71 of the Council of the European Communities".
This is a point which the Statutory Instruments Committee criticised. Then, 'raw milk', 'whole milk', 'semi-skimmed milk' and 'skimmed milk' have the same respective meanings as in the said regulation No. 1411/71".
Apparently the Statutory Instruments Committee did not look at the original regulation of the European Communities because the Committee could have made a third point. There certainly is

in the EEC regulation a definition of milk, of raw milk, semi-skimmed milk, and skimmed milk, but there is no definition of whole milk.
I therefore submit that the regulation is void in law. I do not see how under it a prosecution can be brought and succeed in a court of law, since all these definitions relate to one another; the various sorts of milk are all based on the definition of milk, and obviously, separated milk is skimmed or semi-skimmed. They all relate to one another, but if the key and essential definition is not there because it is not in the EEC regulation, 1 do not see how anybody can be expected to enforce the law. We are saying to every milkman in the country, to every dairy, to every farmer, "You must not do something, but what that is we are not telling you; but if you do it, you will be subject to criminal penalties."
The penalties are £5 a day for a continuing offence. For the original offence the penalty is a fine not exceeding £100 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or both, and that is for something which is not clear.
Before we were in the Common Market there was an unofficial translation of the EEC regulations and many of us used it in the debates on the Common Market. Naturally, being a semi-official translation, it did not have the force of law. We were not in the Common Market and it did not much matter if it contained errors.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,

That the Motions relating to Food and Drugs (S.I., 1973, Nos. 369 and 914) may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until half-past Eleven o'clock or for a period of one and a half hours after the first has been entered upon, whichever is the later.—[Mr. McLaren.]

Question again proposed.

SEPARATED MILK

Mr. English: I do not suggest that the drafting was done in the hon. Lady's Department. It could have been undertaken by Treasury draftsmen. Somebody somewhere in the Government, or Civil Service, is not referring to the official text. These documents, in so far as they are directly applicable in member States, are the law of the land under the Economic Communities Act. The text is contained in the special edition of the regulations in force in December 1972, just prior to the United Kingdom's entry into the Common Market.
There are several volumes of these regulations and that with which we are concerned is contained in volume II It is dear that another translation may have been used, thus rendering the whole document a monstrous legal mess, and that we have a definition that does not exist in the official translation, the legal text, of the European Communities.
The hon. Lady may say that even the official text of the European Communities may not be the one upon which Community law might be based, because the documents were originally passed in French, German and Italian, the languages of the original Community. If the case were ever brought before a European or even an English court—because it has to operate under European law in matters relating to Community law—the court might say that it does not have to look at an English text. It is impossible not only for a layman but for a lawyer to determine from these regulations what is the law contained in them.
There is a supposed definition of "whole milk", but Regulation 1411/71 contains no definition of whole milk. I think I may understand what the regulations are intended to achieve because of preparing for this debate, but in law they achieve nothing.
Therefore, I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw them on technical grounds. I am making a serious request. I hope that she will withdraw them, if not tonight then during the recess, and replace them by regulations that in principle do the same things, but do them effectively in law, too.
It would be wrong of me to rest merely upon that technical point. I have proved conclusively, I believe, that the regulations should be withdrawn but it is of some importance to the whole country for us to understand and consider what they are trying to achieve, though they do not achieve it. As I said, we do not have to do this. These regulations are the first stage of the standardisation of milk in the United Kingdom on Continental lines.
One question I should like to ask the Minister—this is her direct responsibility —is when is it proposed that we should standardise milk fully under Regulation 1411/71? The derogation that I mentioned earlier is that the Treaty of Accession allows us not to enforce Regulation 1411/71 until December 1975. However, I understand that since that is purely permissive, if the Government wish the standardisation could be introduced and completed much earlier.
These regulations are the first stage on the wLy towards such standardisation, so it is obvious that the Department is getting on with the job. What target date has the Minister in mind—presumably we are not to wait until the last minute when it would become illegal not to enforce the European Community law—for standardisation in the United Kingdom? These regulations imply that the target date will be fairly soon, although in order to standardise milk, capital investment in dairies has to take place and so on.
Why do we need standardised milk'? The history of this matter in the Common Market is of some interest. Milk is of importance to us all. Everybody in the Community drinks milk in some form. We in this country drink a large amount of liquid milk—admittedly pooled at dairies, heated, pasteurised and so forth, but basically in the form that it comes from the cow.
It is important not only to the consumer, but to our farmers, because it is 20 per cent. to 25 per cent. of farm output in the United Kingdom. We happen to have more efficient dairy farming in the United Kingdom. We have herds which average 30 as compared with the Continental average of nine. We have a yield of over 4,000 kilograms per cow, which is higher than the average in the Common


Market, and higher than anywhere outside the Netherlands and Denmark. We are efficient dairy farmers.
These regulations are objected to by the National Farmers' Union and the Milk Marketing Board. I consulted both organisations this morning, so I am quoting from conversations which took place with their officers. They are objected to by the Dairy Trade Federation representing retailers of milk. I am sure that if the people of the United Kingdom knew what these regulations were supposed to be doing, they would be generally objected to.
What the regulations say is that milk —in the sense we normally understand, for example, when it is not skimmed or semi-skimmed—should have a butterfat content of 31 per cent. According to a Press statement of the Ministry of Agriculture, on 28th June the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) asked the Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food a Question on the butterfat content of milk. We were strike-bound at the time, but even the Library is unable to trace any such Question on that day. Whether the Library has lost the answer to the Question, or whether the Ministry of Agriculture did not send it over, I do not know. It is untraceable except for the Press notice. It may not have been on the date in question, but that is a difficulty caused by the strike.
However, according to the Minister of State, our overall average is about 3·8 per cent. The Milk Marketing Board informed me this morning that the average butterfat content is 3·72 per cent. It is above the Common Market's 3·5 per cent. The Common Market regulation imposes by law a minimum and it is of some importance when the Ministry talks of "whole milk". Presumably it means what the European Communities call "full cream milk", which should be in the regulations. It is
milk that has been subjected to at least one heat treatment or an authorised process of equivalent effect by a milk processor and whose fat content is at least 3·50 per cent. or has been brought to 3·50 per cent.
"Brought to" in this case means brought up or brought down. That is absolutely clear, because if one looks at the definition of skimmed milk, it is

similar except that its fat content has been
brought to not more than 0–30 per cent.
The butterfat content of English milk, which comes substantially naturally from cows, varies partly seasonally and partly by region. It varies between 3·4 and 4·1 per cent. It must be at least 3 per cent. by law under the pre-war regulations. For about two months in the year it is a little below the 3–5 that is required under the Common Market regulations.
Hence the standardisation of milk. One would have to bring it up by topping it up with cream or milk with a higher butterfat content, to bring the average butterfat content up to 3·5 per cent. It is also likely to lead to standardisation from the opposite point of view. Whatever the price of milk may be in the Common Market in future, it is undoubtedly true—even if it were entirely the same as it has been in the past—that the Common Market price structure considerably increases the price of milk products such as butter and cheese over the prices to which we have been accustomed.
Britain has catered for liquid milk. To a substantial extent the Common Market has not catered for liquid milk. Indeed, most liquid milk in the Common Market is sold well below the 3–5 per cent. butterfat content; it is the skimmed or semi-skimmed variety. That is partly a matter of taste. It is also, presumably, cheaper. With a high food price economy such as the Common Market has, not everybody can afford to buy everything, and they tend to go for cheaper products.
It would pay someone, when we are in the Common Market economy fully, to reduce a higher than 3·5 per cent. butterfat content by skimming off the cream and selling it at a higher price to make dairy products. That will mean standardised milk of a lower quality.
There is another reason for my saying, "of a lower quality". Under the present English law and the regulations of the Milk Marketing Board and its subsidiaries throughout the United Kingdom, the compositional quality schemes are regulated in much more detail than under this Common Market regulation. This regulation refers only to butterfat content.
Our requirements also specify the total solid content and the content that is


solid, not fat. By law there must be a minimum of 3 per cent. butterfat content. In fact, it is 3·72 per cent—11·5 per cent. total solids, so that 8·5 per cent. are solids, not fats, which are equally nutritious in most cases.
The Common Market does not deal with this. At present we pay farmers for milk on the basis, primarily, of the total solid content. The higher it is, the more money the farmer gets. The Milk Marketing Board and its subsidiaries regard the milk as more valuable for its total solid, not just its butterfat content, because the solid content is the nutritious part of the milk. The rest is water.
The nutritious part of milk is primarily its solid content and that is why farmers are paid for that. In future, they will not need to bother about that: they may re-breed their herds; they may do what they like. But they will not have to bother about the quality content of milk as we have hitherto defined quality; they have to define only the butterfat content.
It is therefore interesting to wonder why the Common Market has this regulation, and I decided to trace it. I discovered that in the Common Market this regulation in 1971 was an attempt to raise the minimum butterfat content of full-cream milk—as they call it, and what the Ministry inaccurately calls whole milk—from about 3 per cent. to 3·5 per cent. Since the war, all countries of Europe have steadily attempted to raise the standards. I discovered that the idea of standardised milk did not exist in Europe before the war, any more than it exists in this country now. As with the horticultural policy, I tracked back its origins to the Netherlands under the Gauleiter Seyss-Inquart, the Nazi Gauleiter of the Netherlands during the war.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the relevance will be clear with a short quotation. It is in the judgment given against him—he was a war criminal—at Nuremberg. After saying that he
participated in the Nazi intrigue which preceded the occupation of Austria"—
he was a friend of Schuschnigg and betrayed him—
he was made Chancellor of Austria under the German threat of invasion. He instituted a programme of confiscating Jewish property. Under his regime Jews were forced to emigrate, were sent to concentration camps and subjected to pogroms.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member said I would see the relevance. I do not see the relevance of this part of his comments.

Mr. English: I was merely trying to describe the man, Mr. Speaker.
It continues with various items and then states:
As Reichs-Commissioner for the Netherlands he was ruthless in applying terrorism to suppress all opposition to the German occupation. He carried out the administration of the Netherlands without regard to the Geneva Convention, which he declared to be obsolete.
One of the things he did was to reduce the butterfat content of milk. He sold to the people of the Netherlands milk without the cream. The object of the exercise was that the slave population of Europe—everybody who was not a German was a slave—was fed the milk, the cream was skimmed off and turned into butter for the Germans, particularly the German army.
That is how this scheme originated. I quote the last words of Seyss-Inquart, the last person to be hanged at Nüremburg. He said:
I hope that this
—his execution—
is the last act of … the second world war.
He should have remembered Shakespeare's words which were more relevant:
The evil that men do lives after them".
I fail to understand why the Minister should present us with mistaken regulations in effect, to allow a Nazi gauleiter to rule us from his grave. This is monstrous. It introduces standardisation. Dahrendorf, the German Common Market Commissioner, said that the Common Market was messing about trying to standardise bottle tops. I had not realised until now that they were also messing about trying to standardise milk merely because of what was done during the war by a Nazi.
I therefore ask the Minister to withdraw the regulations. Let us have our milk. We cannot standardise cows. Let us not try standardising their products. Let us have the milk as it is, with safeguards for health.

10.20 p.m.

Mr. Albert Booth: My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) has adversely criticised the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and its counsel. May I say in defence of that committee, of which I am chairman, that but for the adverse report which it made of the Scottish regulations we might not be debating the matter tonight.

Mr. English: I accept what my hon. Friend says. What I meant was that, had I not had a conversation with him, as presumably is the case with 629 other Members, and if I had relied on the third report I would not have known about them, and I would naturally have been more interested in the earlier English regulations than in the Scottish ones.

Mr. Booth: I accept what my hon. Friend says, but in defence of the learned gentleman who is your counsel, Mr. Speaker, and who is also counsel to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, and the Statutory Instruments Committee of the Commons, I would say that his job is made immensely more difficult, if not impossible, by the additional task imposed upon those who in this House, have to deal with the scrutiny of such instruments, because of the complications added to our task by instruments which are introduced to put into effect EEC regulations and directives. I believe that this is directly applicable to the two instruments that we are debating tonight.
When one carries out technical scrutiny of a normal statutory instrument, one has as a first concern to ensure that in making the instrument the Minister is properly exercising powers given to him by Parliament. This is not the case with any EEC instruments, because the Minister who is answerable to this Parliament quotes as the authority or power some Community regulation or some aspect of the EEC Act, which immediately gives him the right to do anything, by delegated legislation, providing that he does it to put into effect the Treaty of Rome in this country or some directive made in Brussels. To call on any officer serving a Committee of the House to check whether such power is being exercised in the manner which is technically correct, and to advise the Committee, is to call upon him to

undertake an immense task. I think the whole House should be indebted to the officer for the extent to which we are able, by his assistance to our Committee, to carry out a far wider measure of scrutiny than would be possible without his assistance.
I turn now to one of the two major criticisms which the Joint Committee made of the Scottish Instrument, and one which I believe is of absolute crucial and fundamental importance to Parliament. I draw attention to Regulation 2(3)(b) in either the Scottish or the English instrument which says that the effect of the instrument shall be that any Community decision which replaces or amends Regulation 1411/71 of the Community shall be held to be the law of this country by virtue of this instrument.
This is an amazing proposition. It is asking this Parliament to accept that the instrument before us can have any one of a number of legal effects. Its effect now purports to be to put into the law of this country a Community regulation.
But if the Council of Ministers or the Commissioners in Brussels decide to amend that, it is their amended version which has effect. Or if they do anything else which can be construed as a reference to that regulation, that shall also have effect on this instrument. Therefore, we do not know what the meaning of this will be next year, the year after, or the year after that. All we can be certain of is that if the Commission decides to do anything by way of amendment to this by a directly applicable Community instrument, the words of this instrument will give effect to that.
As far as I know, this has never happened before in the whole history of British law. Whenever the law has been changed, at least there has had to be some amendment to an Act or a new set of regulations laid before Parliament. Tonight history is being made. Tonight we are being asked to accept that a document before us can have any one of a whole series of effects. I submit that this is something that this House should never accept.
Will the Minister tell us how anyone who has to operate legally in future in the delivery of semi-skimmed milk or skimmed milk in this country can know whether he is doing so legally? It must be admitted that this instrument does


not give any guide. People cannot even be guided by reference to the Community regulation which this puts into effect, because that may be amended.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West said that the terms used in the instrument and those used in the regulation are not the same, which makes the matter even more difficult. I say that without any special knowledge of the delivery of skimmed milk. I claim to have some knowledge of statutory instruments and the way in which they change our law. Never before, in my experience, have we had the proposition put to us that we should have our law changed outside this country without any indication being given in our primary or delegated legislation that a change of that law has taken place.
It is proper to ask how this will be administered in this country. Is it seriously contended that all those engaged in the delivery of milk will be expected assiduously to study every regulation and directive issued in Brussels and to decide for themselves which provisions amend the legal effect of the statutory instrument and act accordingly? Is that what they are expected to do? If so. we should be told. How is the instrument to be policed?
Can the Minister tell us how anybody can be prosecuted for a breach of the instrument after its legal effect has been changed by some new directly applicable regulation in Brussels? Is he to be held to be in breach of domestic law? If so, how can he be prosecuted in the courts? Can he be prosecuted for not complying with a regulation from Brussels—on the basis of this statutory instrument, for failing to comply with a meaning which it did not possess at the time he was held to be in breach of it? This is the ludicrous situation that could arise if the meaning of the regulation is changed by some future regulation made by the EEC in connection with delivery of milk.
Has the Minister already decided that there shall be some way of informing those involved? In any case, where would such a prosecution take place? It would not be in this country and surely it would not be proposed that a person should be hauled off to the EEC court for a breach of regulations?
I suggest in all seriousness that we should totally oppose the proposition that

any body in this country should be held to be in breach of domestic law when there is nothing on the statute book or in any regulations made under any of the Acts of this Parliament to indicate which law he has breached. This is a terrible proposition. It is most noticeable that no announcement was made to the House that this new legal principle was to be introduced by the Government. There is no indication in the explanatory note attached to either of the instruments that this was to be the case, and we have been given no reason to believe that this is workable.
If this idea is extended, then the idea that we have a law of the land, in our statutes and regulations, which is properly interpreted in the courts and held to be binding upon our citizens, is no longer valid, because it will be possible to make decisions on the basis of regulations from outside this country which change the legal effect of our law, without the citizen knowing about it. This is an intolerable position and I would never support it.

10.32 p.m.

Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: The hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) is going a little far in his criticism of paragraph 3(b). I cannot help in the legal argument and I do not pretend to be able to do so. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be able to do so when she replies.

Mr. English: The hon. Member mentions paragraph 3(b). I do not understand. There is a Regulation 3 but no (a) or (b).

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I am talking about Regulation 2(3)(b). The hon. Member was worried about the position whereby the Commission or the Council of Ministers can impose instruments and regulations on the dairymen of this country under this regulation, without those people knowing anything about it. My hon. Friend will undoubtedly answer this point, but there is another matter to which I would draw the hon. Member's attention.
None of these regulations or instruments will come through the Council of Ministers or the Commission without being duly publicised in draft form. It is here that the European Assembly has a


useful role to play. These draft documents come before the Assembly in plenary session and are discussed. If the Council wished to make any change, our officials in Brussels would be notified.
Basically the safeguard the hon. Member requires is that hon. Members from this House would be over there and would know of what was going on. They would see the draft regulations and. should anything arise, would be aware of the situation and thus able to inform the House.
This House, through the Joint Committee, would be able to look at such documents, check them and come to the House to tell it what was happening. These draft regulations cannot have the force of law unless they go through this process.

Mr. Norman Buchan: What the hon. Gentleman says cannot happen has already happened. This matter came before a first-class Committee of this House but it was not until the tenth sitting that it picked this point up. The dairy farmers of England and Wales could have been breaking the law.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: The hon. Gentleman is not quite right to say that this has happened without our being aware of it. We knew that this regulation was in force. There is some confusion between the hon. Member and myself, but I am sure that the Minister will be able to deal with it. What comes forward from the Commission has to be examined by parliamentarians from this House and elsewhere. Even under the present regulations, which relate to regulation No. 1411/71, it can be known and publicised.
We are dealing with a fairly small point. The hon. Member for Nottingham, West made a tremendous speech about the standardisation of milk and so on. He exaggerated, because we are dealing not with skimmed or semi-skimmed milk but with milk which is separated. The type that is rightly being prohibited for sale to human beings is not sold in this country but is used for pig feed. Skimmed and semi-skimmed milk is sold legitimately and will continue to be sold.
The hon. Gentleman concentrated on the butterfat content, saying that the average butterfat content of milk

handled by the Milk Marketing Board over the past year was 3·72 per cent. and that the regulation says that the Community can go down to 3·5 per cent. He envisages that the whole milk will be sold liquid to the consumer at that lower level because of the regulation. That is not true. The hon. Gentleman went in for great histrionics about how we should have to suffer milk of lower quality. That is nonsense. That will not happen because of the regulation.
The Milk Marketing Board has been doing everything it can not only to increase the butterfat content to over 3–75 per cent. but—which is much more important—to increase the total solids content. Our own regulations provide a total solids content of 11·5 per cent., but we are up to 12–3 per cent. because of the price incentives, which will continue to be given. Nothing in the regulations will persuade the board to lower its standards.

Mr. English: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but when I had my discussion this morning with the officers of the Milk Marketing Board they specifically mentioned the matter of lower quality. They also said that, as the figures imply, the lowering of quality will be small. There is no doubt that those engaged in marketing milk in this country believe that there will be a modest lowering of quality.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: The hon. Gentleman has that opinion.

Mr. English: It is not mine.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: With my knowledge of the industry, which may be greater than the hon. Gentleman's, I do not believe that it is justified. What we have achieved will not be thrown away, and there is no reason why it should be. There is nothing in the regulation which says that it will be.
The Community has succeeded in raising its butterfat content over the past five years and although it has not mentioned total solids, that percentage has been rising over the years and will continue to rise. The regulation does not deal with butterfat or total solids but with whether separated milk shall be sold for human consumption. The answer is that it must not be and never will be.
The point made by the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) is important, but there are safeguards in the way we do business in the House. We have a delegation at the European Parliament and our own Ministers and delegation in Brussels spend a great deal of time looking into such matters. We should have ample warning of any question of the Commission's considering changing any of the regulations by instrument under regulation No. 1411/71. We shall have ample warning. We shall have ample time to debate it and to take action to deal with it.
I welcome these regulations. They are a move in the right direction. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to answer the points hon. Gentlemen have raised and to confirm what I have said.

10.40 p.m.

Mr. Ronald King Murray: I am sure that we are all grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) and Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) and to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments for raising this important matter and bringing it to our attention.
I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary about two short matters. The first is more a layman's point. The second is a more technical, legal one.
First, I should like the Minister to tell us whether there is any difference between "full cream milk" as it is referred to in the Common Market regulation No. 1411/7 and "whole milk" as it is referred to in these United Kingdom regulations. If dairymen and milk producers talk indiscriminately about "full clear milk" and: "whole milk", much of the substance of the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West, disappears. But I do not know whether that is the case, and I should be grateful for some guidance.
My second and more technical point concerns the legality of the formulation of regulation 2(3)(b). I have some sympathy with the Report of the Joint Committee on Satutory Instruments and with what my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness said. However, when I first read sub-paragraph (b) I thought that it was meant to do something rather different from what the Joint Committee

appeared to have thought. I thought that it meant something done quite innocently in legislation. For example, under the Factories Acts we have woodworking regulations in operation which came into force under an Act which has long since been repealed. The regulations are still operative because each succeeding Factories Act re-enacts and reinforces the original legal basis from which the regulations sprang. In other words, although the parent Act is dead, the legitimacy of the children is continued.
I was seriously shaken when I referred to the Tenth Report of the Joint Committee, because I found that that was not what the official reply indicated. It said that the provision
… corresponds to a provision frequently used in subordinate legislation which refers to other enactments to avoid the necessity of consequential alterations in such legislation each time there is an amendment of such enactment …
That is wholly ambiguous. It can apply to the innocent use that I have mentioned, or it can apply to the sinister use which my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness puts upon it. For that reason, my hon. Friend's argument is well founded.
The only escape from the force of that argument would be if there were added to the end of subparagraph (b) a proviso to this effect:
(b) as replaced or amended by any subsequent directly applicable Community instrument
—and then the addition of these words:
…provided that the content of these regulations is not affected thereby.
That would make it the innocent use to which we are accustomed.
The Minister has to reply specifically to that detailed criticism before we can be satisfied that the regulations are properly worded and should be allowed to continue as the law of the land.

10.44 p.m.

Mr. Norman Buchan: I hope to be brief, and I may ask leave of Mr. Deputy Speaker to speak again following the Parliamentary Secretary's reply.
Despite the emptiness of the House and the lateness of the hour and of the Session, the House has hit upon an extremely


difficult situation for the Government. I regret that, not for the first time this Session, it has been left to the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to reply to this debate. Although she has been extremely competent and good in her job, in view of the implications of these regulations, the Minister should have been sent for the moment that the case was deployed so effectively by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English).
The withdrawal of these regulations is the only way out of the impasse that we have reached. I do not want to redeploy the arguments. Apart from the historic colour and interest which my hon. Friend added, the case that he deployed was extremely impressive, as was the case deployed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray), the Shadow Lord Advocate, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth), who is, after all, the Chairman of the Committee which is investigating these statutory affairs.
I want to stress two points. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West referred to defects in the regulations. This is very serious. The defect which my hon. Friend particularly pointed out was the failure to be able to define that which the regulations purport to define. We cannot allow these regulations to go through the House of Commons.
The appropriate Community regulation, No. 1411/71, is at variance with these regulations, and does not define what it purports to define. In addition, it contains penal sanctions so that a failure to carry out that which has not been defined is subject to a penalty not exceeding £100 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months.
Apart from the aspect raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness about legislation made in one area years before we became a partner being used to prosecute in this country, there is a very serious implication in prosecution when the liberty of the individual is also involved in the alternative of imprisonment. For that reason also the regulations must be withdrawn.
I do not agree with the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) who said that these regulations were, after all, not so important and that they merely deal with skimmed milk and separated milk—

Mr. English: That is the first step on the way.

Mr. Buchan: —used in animal feed-stuffs and the question of fat content, and so on. That is precisely not the point. The precise point that we are raising is the whole constitutional position—it goes as far as that raised by these regulations.
The regulations go very much further than questions of milk. They happen to be concerned with milk, but their content could have been more serious. It is Wrong to say that this matter would have been picked up in any case, as the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West said. It is not so long ago that the European Parliament, which the hon. Gentleman praised, attempted to question the Commissioner for Agriculture, M. Lardinois. He was not there. Therefore, it cannot necessarily be subject to this kind of scrutiny.
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West says that these matters are subject to the scrutiny of an appropriate Committee of this House, but the chairman of that appropriate Committee has been present tonight to say that that is not good enough. We also have the evidence in the Third Report of the Joint Committee that the identical thing went through—I do not know how long before. It was the accident that this regulation referred to a matter which had to have separate English, Welsh and Scottish legislation that enabled us to cope with it. Were it not for that accident, this would have been law—wrong law, bad law, in some ways impossible law.
Without going into the definitions in the regulations—perhaps I may speak again when we have heard the Parliamentary Secretary—I would urge the hon. Lady with all the force that 1 can command, after the impressive case that we have heard and, even more, the impressive authority of those who delivered it, that the regulations should be withdrawn.

10.51 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Peggy Fenner): The basis of the complaint of hon. Members opposite, especially the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English), is that the English text of the EEC regulation referred to in our statutory instruments, as published in the Official Journal of the Community, does not contain any definition of "whole milk", although our instrument says that it does.
The words "lait entier" in the French appear in English as "full cream milk" This is a mistranslation, as the hon. Gentleman said it might be, which was detected in my Ministry when the draft English text of the EEC regulation was circulated for comment in September 1972. The Council was asked to correct the error and did so in a corrigendum to the EEC regulation dated 1st March 1973. A copy of this corrigendum was in our possession before the Separated Milk Regulations 1973 were laid before Parliament. There is thus no question of anyone acting under a misunderstanding of, or contrary to, the true intention of the EEC regulation.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, West also queried the legal position. My advice is that, irrespective of the corrigendum—the hon. Gentleman conceded this also—in so far as there could have been any doubt as to the meaning of "whole milk" in our regulations, this could have been resolved by reference to one or more of the texts of the EEC regulation in the other official languages, all of which are of equal status in interpreting it. There is no doubt as to the true meaning. The French text is lait entier, the Italian lane Micro and the German, perhaps even more forcefully, vollmilch.

Mr. English: I entirely accept what the hon. Lady said, but she surely realises that her explanation shows how difficult it is for an English solicitor advising a client to determine what the law is. He has to notice the original regulation, the fact that it was corrected, the fact that, if there is some doubt, it might be advisable to look up the French, German, Italian and Dutch texts, for example, employing the services of someone who understands those languages. How on earth a milkman does this I do not know,

but even an English solicitor would find this difficult.

Mrs. Fenner: I was coming to the question of communications. The hon. Member said that an ordinary Englishman should not be asked to refer to texts in another language when he has difficulty in interpreting the law. I entirely agree. But in the particular case with which we are now dealing I find it hard to imagine why an ordinary Englishman should be in such trouble. "Whole milk", as my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) said, is a term that has been in general use within the dairy industry for many years. Similarly, anyone dealing with milk knows very well what is meant by "separated milk" and would seem to have no need to refer to any regulation, English or European, for a definition.
I also agree with the hon. Gentleman in the matter of "communication". The corrigendum of the Council, which put the mistranslation right, was dated 1st March 1973, but its publication in the English language version of the Official Journal of the Community had still not taken place when the hon. Gentleman raised this matter under Standing Order No. 9 on 9th July. This is attributable to the fact that the editors of the Journal do not publish every time they receive amending material, but prefer to wait until they have a reasonable amount. I can understand their point of view, but delays of the kind experienced with this particular regulation are too long and we must try to have them reduced.
I trust that I have now dealt firmly with the definition and that there can be no doubt about the legal position.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, West asked why the regulation was needed. It is necessary, for skimmed and semi-skimmed milk, to provide the enforcement of Article 6(1) which provides that only milk that reaches the standards laid down for drinking milk may be delivered for direct consumption in the Community. For the time being the regulation does not have to be enforced in respect of whole or raw milk.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the unknown amendment which bothered him. The amendment to Regulation


1411/71 relates to the provision of an additional category of whole milk with a fixed fat content of not less than 3.80 per cent. That is to be found in Annex 1, Part II, Paragraph 1(2) of the Act of Accession and is referred to in Regulation 2(3)(a) of the statutory instrument. It was placed there at our request to protect the position of Channel Island milk, to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
The hon. Gentleman gave us a long dissertation with some extraordinary comments about Nazi gauleiters, which have no place in this instrument or in this House, on the subject of standardisation. The regulation makes standardisation of whole milk mandatory by the end of 1975.
My right hon. Friend refered to butterfat content. The hon. Gentleman knows that there is a derogation to 31st December 1975. Indeed, he mentioned that the Community regulation is for a minimum fat content of 3·5 per cent., and he fairly referred to the fact that our milk is often very much above that. But the intention of standardising has nothing to do with a Nazi gauleiter or any ephemeral reason like that. It is to ensure a consistent and high quality of milk to the consumer all the year round.
Dairies must bring their milk up to the EEC minimum standard of 3·5 per cent. butterfat content, but they are not compelled to reduce milk which is naturally above that standard. At some times of the year in some areas of this country the butterfat content of milk is below the minimum standard of 3·5 per cent. For the consumer, therefore, this is an improvement.
I should like now to go on to what 1 see as the other main basis of the hon. Gentleman's arguments. I confess myself surprised that the Joint Committee should have chosen to comment on the point firmly made by the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth), especially as the earlier England and Wales regulations are in almost every respect identical and caused no anxiety at all.
The writing of a statutory instrument in such a form which allows it to be adapted automatically for minor non controversial changes, to which the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh,

Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray) referred, has long been an accepted practice in this country. It is a sensible and practical arrangement. Otherwise, fresh legislation would be necessary every time minor noncontroversial changes were made.
This regulation, by cross-reference, incorporates another part of the law now operating in the United Kingdom, and that is the relevant Community law. If that other part of the law were changed, it would be a waste of parliamentary time always to change specifically the Milk Regulations. The formula used in the Milk Regulations simply ensures that the change operates for the Milk Regulations purposes as well.
The hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness referred to penalties. The EEC regulation does not itself specifically contain provisions for enforcement. The purpose of that is to allow national Governments complete freedom to continue their own enforcement practices which the Community accepts will differ from State to State. There is no criminal jurisdiction within the Community Court. I hope that I have answered that point.
I trust that the hon. Gentleman will see, on the legal point which relates to the definition, that there was a corrigendum issued about the mistranslation, and it has now corrected it, although it has not yet been published in the OFFICIAL JOURNAL. We are talking about a practice, to which the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith, referred, of minor non-controversial changes, and I trust therefore that hon. Members will not wish to press—

Mr. Booth: The hon. Lady is suggesting that she is answering these points by saying that paragraph 2(3)(b) relates only to minor and non-controversial changes. That is a misreading of the paragraph. That paragraph alludes to
any subsequently directly applicable Community instrument.
It is not related to minor or non-controversial changes.

Mrs. Fenner: Any amendment of a directly applicable Community provision is automatically part of the law of this country. That effect is not brought about by these regulations. This is part of Community law which operates in this country.

Mr. English: I think that through inadvertence the hon. Lady did not answer one point which I raised. The hon. Lady and I are aware that the standardisation of whole milk under Regulation 1411/71 need not take place in law until 1st January 1976, but I asked her for obviously this is a matter which involves capital investment in dairying institutions and so forth—what was her target date for it. The period up to that date is the maximum length of derogation under Community law. Presumably the Ministry has in mind some sort of target date before that very last possible date for actually conforming to the regulation and bringing it into force in this country. I wanted to know what it was.

Mrs. Fenner: There is no target date, and although the hon. Gentleman says that the derogation ends in December 1975, the Minister may bring it in earlier to allow a running-in period for the trade to accustom itself to the new procedures before the final deadline. Standardisation and our present arrangements could, therefore, run in parallel for a time. But the time for this introductory period is a matter of negotiation between the interests concerned and the Government—I trust that the hon. Gentleman will note particularly "between the interests concerned and the Government", in the light of his reference to investment and so on.

11.4 p.m.

Mr. Buchan: With the leave of the House, may I say that we remain convinced that the regulations should be withdrawn. The Minister has put up a noble case for her Department, as she always does, and I congratulate her on that. But that does not strengthen her case. Her argument was based on the fact that the translation was subject to a corrigendum which was not published and, even worse, was not published on the ground that publication should wait until there was sufficient of them to justify publication. That is an intolerable position, especially as we are here dealing with offences and penalties involving imprisonment. I am not exaggerating.
What would we say if the HANSARD editors decided that nothing exciting had happened this week and that they would therefore not publish for a month or two? There was a strike but we were able to read what happened one way or

another. It required a strike to stop the printing of HANSARD in this country. On the Continent it is stopped by law, by officialdom. That is not good enough. We cannot tolerate a situation in which definitions can swing back and forth like that. It is not sufficient that somewhere in the rafters is a corrigendum which deals with the problem.
The right way to deal with it is the way which has been suggested by the Committee, and I refer the Minister to appendix 1 on Report No. 10:
The Committee at their meeting on 12th June invited the Scottish Office to submit a memorandum to help the Committee.
We understand that the corrigendum was prepared in March, but there is no mention of this being brought before the Committee. All that the Committee and, indeed, the milk producers of this country have to operate on—and it comes into operation on 1st April 1973, and thank heaven for derogation—are the existing regulations which only serve to confuse the situation.
We also come back to the even more serious point which surprised the Minister. In report No. 10 the Committee picked out Regulation 2(3)(b) which states that any regulation is—
as replaced or amended by any subsequent directly applicable Community instrument.
The defence which she put up was also put up to the Committee. She said that this always happens. It avoids us having to go through the process of legislation. But when that argument was made to the Committee it was rejected. That Committee, representing this House, carries, and certainly should carry, more weight than the executive. That Committee, representing all parties, is extremely important. The Government by their attitude are now challenging the principle of parliamentary scrutiny. They are rejecting the rejection by the Committee of the arguments that have been put forward. The Government have rejected the Committee's view with no further explanation.
A further point put forward by the Committee is that any change that takes place is not subject to the direct consideration of this House in the normal way. Presumably a change in the regulations may not be published until there are enough to make it worth publishing them. That is intolerable. The changing


European regulations will not be available in the same way that amendments to United Kingdom legislation are made known.
The seriousness of this is also that statutory instruments giving effect to EEC regulations have been made before the regulations have been published. Here, we are safeguarded by delegation, but it can happen without the safeguard of delegation that they can be made and become law before being published, and long before we get corrigenda published.

Mrs. Fenner: Is the hon. Gentleman referring only to the Scottish regulations, because, of course, the Joint Committee made none of these comments with regard to the English regulation, which is precisely the same?

Mr. English: I would add that the tenth report, on the Scottish regulations—I realise that there were printing difficulties at the time—came out on 26th June, by which time the regulations had been in force for 12 days.

Mr. Buchan: We have the Chairman of the Committee here, and I would give way if he wished to interrupt me and make this point, but the third report was printed by order of the House of Commons on 20th March and the second was printed by order of the House on 26th June, and it was significant that they were already legislation before they were printed. How can the hon. Lady rest on this, when we had the report on legislation which was identical, word for word, and which referred only by accident to separate Scottish legislation? The Committee now picks it up and corrects the earlier omission.
The argument is precisely that point, and the fact that the Committee did not pick it up the first time but did so the second time reinforces the argument. The hon. Lady must see this. The Committee missed it the first time. If the Committee had picked it up the first time and missed it the second, we would have assumed that mature consideration had prevailed, but when it picks it up the second time and then discusses it, that reinforces the argument. The hon. Lady cannot rest on her argument.
There are two points on the order itself. The first is one which the hon. Lady

made, that there was no offence in the EEC but that it was left to each separate country. But there is much offence in this lady, as Hamlet said to Ophelia. If the regulation is tolerated in Europe and we find it foisted upon us, there is much offence in it. That is no excuse but a demerit.
The other point is on standardisation. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) is perfectly correct. "Brought to" can mean "brought down to". It is no use arguing that there is no proposal to bring down the butterfat content. The argument is different.
The argument by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West is that, because of the pricing policy of the EEC particularly on butter and milk products, once regulations—and we know that regulations tend to create a norm—exist, the tendency will be to use them to reduce the figure to 3·5 so as to produce milk products at the high price at which butter will be. That is the argument, and it seems a perfectly correct one.

Mr. Booth: Will my hon. Friend consider that the hon. Lady is chiding the Joint Committee for not having drawn attention to the first report but that she has not told the House that the Government did not set up the Joint Committee until we had such a backlog of statutory instruments that it was impossible to consider all, and in the circumstances it is hardly reprehensible for the Committee to take the view that it was not possible to consider every statutory instrument this Session?

Mr. English: My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) has got my point on relative pricing correctly. In addition, there is the reason that in two months of the year some milk must have its butter content reduced to bring it up to the 3–5 per cent. level. But in order to do that, it means that one has to add some cream to it and one can do so only by taking cream from some other milk, presumably at other times of the year.

Mr. Buchan: That is an interesting point. This is a Daniel come to judgment in the whole argument on the need for standardisation throughout the year. If milk sometimes drops below the 3·5


level, it has to be added to from milk in the other nine months of the year. That is the significance of the argument. We reject these regulations. We ask the Government to do the right thing by an all-party Committee of the House. They should act regardless of whether there is to be a corrigendum which we may see one day when there are enough others to publish them all.
The regulations will affect our producers, and we ask the Government to withdraw them because they introduce an extremely bad precedent in the relationship between the EEC and ourselves. Tonight it is milk. Next it could be an even more serious matter—tea, a subject that can move mountains in this country. There could be incredible trouble for the Government. I advise them as deeply and strongly as I can to avoid that trouble by withdrawing the regulations. If there is a derogation until 1975, we can exist without it throughout the summer. Let the Government take the regulations back, study them and listen to the advice given by the Committee. If they do, they will save themselves and the country a great deal of trouble.

Question put and negatived.

SEPARATED MILK (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS 1973

Motion made,

That the Separated Milk (Scotland) Regulations 1973 (S.I., 1973, No. 914), dated 8th May 1973, a copy of which was laid before this House on 24th May, be withdrawn.—[Mr. Buchan.]

Question put and negatived.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McLaren.]

ROADS (FARM ANIMALS)

11.18 p.m.

Mr. James Tinn: The Under-Secretary of State and I can congratulate ourselves that, thanks to the way the House has so expeditiously disposed of the mass of business which stood on the Order Paper, we are able

to reach the Adjournment debate very much earlier than we expected. Devoted as you are, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and ready at any time of day or night to serve the House, I am sure that you too find this not unwelcome.
The problem to which I draw attention is also of concern to our dairy farmers, but unlike the problem we have just been discussing it has been with them for a long time. It concerns not only dairy farmers but farmers generally, and every motorist who has occasion to drive in the countryside is aware of it. It is the danger to and that caused by animals, particularly farm animals, when they cross the roads.
My attention was concentrated on the matter by the problem of one of my constituents, Mr. R. C. Dickson, of Upsall Grange Farm. His farm is bisected by a road, as so many farms are. Two-thirds of his acreage and his dairy herd are on a different side of the road from his farm buildings. This has always been a difficulty for him, but the recent improvement of the road to dual carriageway has greatly increased the problem because the greater speed of the traffic makes it even more urgent for at least three men to be engaged in seeing the animals safely across the road four times a day.
Mr. Dickson's farm of 270 acres and 120 cows is not large enough for him to be able to provide that kind of manning. Accordingly, he asked the North Riding County Council to provide an underpass. Although the council was sympathetic, the request had to be turned down on grounds of expense, and this was understandable. All that was eventually provided was one of the customary statutory signs "Beware Cattle Crossing".
One knows that such signs are always in place. They tend to become rather weather beaten and are sometimes covered by foliage. Because they are always in place they tend to be disregarded by motorists, particularly urban motorists, who are not as aware as a countryman might be of the times at which cows are likely to be crossing the road on their way to and from the milking shed.
I approached the Department and suggested that the solution might lie in providing some kind of flashing sign similar to that which is customarily provided to


warn motorists when they are approaching a school crossing. At that time the idea was not accepted, but I believe that it has since been considered seriously by the Department and I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us something about it.
This problem has been with us for a long time. In 1964 a working party was set up by the Ministry of Transport to consider the problem. The working party reported in 1967 and made certain recommendations. I am sorry to say that only one of those recommendations has been implemented, and that consisted of little more than the making of an advisory code of self-help. The Ministry issued a code about the wearing of bright-coloured jackets by farm workers.
The reason given for rejecting the working party's other recommendations was that the Minister did not have power to make the kind of grants suggested in its report, but he offered to take two steps which it was thought would contribute to solving the problem. The first was the inclusion of a paragraph on farm access in a booklet to be issued, and the second was the amendment of the traffic signs regulations so that certain types of temporary warning signs might be used. That proposal has not yet been implemented, but we have reason to believe that some progress has been made within the Department on this matter. Perhaps the Minister will tell us about it tonight.
All that has been achieved so far is the approval by the Transport Department of the use of a portable triangle similar to that used by motorists to denote a hazard arising from, for instance, a broken-down vehicle. It took the Department an unconscionable time to approve that commonsense step, which is compulsory in other countries, but which in Britain is only permissive. So far the Department is prepared to allow similar signs to be used to give warning at cattle crossing but will not allow them to be modified to indicate a hazard from a farm tractor or whatever else may be the hazard of which the farmer wishes to warn motorists. Farmers are anxious that the use of such signs should be authorised. This would be a small step forward but it would be well worth while.
My preference is still for the flashing indicator type of sign. For one thing, it does not involve an obstruction to the road, even to the small degree that a triangle does. It is more obviously eye-catching. It is difficult to miss it even in poor light. In winter, milking times occur in poor light. There may be difficulties about power supply, but I should have thought that the signs could be battery-powered.
Flashing indicators would be more expensive than the ordinary triangles which farmers favour. It is only fair that the Department should consider that the provision of such signs, as with all other signs provided for the safety of the motorists and all other road users, should be a charge on public funds. If such flashing signs are authorised, I greatly hope that the cost will not fall on the farmer concerned.
I have so far had mostly in mind the risk to dairy animals crossing roads. My attention has been drawn to the more general problem of access to farms and the risk to animals. I urge on the Minister the importance of his Department considering the provision of grants, administered perhaps through local consultative committees consisting of the local authorities, farmers, safety committess and so on, to ensure that from the time when new roads or road improvements are first planned the question of farm access is considered, the cost being borne by public funds, with a view to animals being confined as far as possible to minor roads and avoiding slow-moving vehicles such as tractors having to travel any distance along the public road with all the hazards that this can cause to faster moving traffic.
I hope I have said enough to indicate the reality of the problem. I must express disappointment that the Department has not found it possible to come forward with a suitable solution sooner. I only hope that the Minister will be able to give us some firm proposals.

11.30 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Keith Speed): I should like first to congratulate the hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Tinn) on raising this subject of farm animals, which follows naturally on our earlier debates. I felt at one stage that at the pace we


were moving the subject would not be reached before the evening was out, but I am glad that we have made sufficient progress not to have to have another late sitting.
As the House knows, since taking office we have been particularly concerned to ensure that everything possible was done to make our roads safer. Up to now there has been a danger, I suppose, in view of all the attention and understandable publicity given to our proposals to assist house dwellers affected by new roads and the other categories mentioned in our earlier debate tonight, that when we discussed regulations designed to protect people from the effects of new roads and so on the needs of a different but important class of people farmers—would seem to be neglected.
Perhaps I ought to declare a constituency interest. The President of the National Farmers' Union, now Sir Henry Plumb, is both a constituent and a personal friend of mine, and I hope that when wearing my ministerial hat I shall never neglect the interests of farmers.
The effect of new roads and the improvement of existing roads on farms and farmland has always been carefully considered under successive administrations, and this consideration has been by no means lessened while public attention has tended to concentrate more on the effects of road building in urban areas. Wherever it has been appropriate, both my Department and the previous Ministry of Transport have always consulted the National Farmers' Union and individual farmers affected by the trunk road programme, and local highway authorities have been encouraged to consult landowners affected by road schemes at an early stage.
The hon. Member mentioned access to new roads. He should recognise that cattle crossings by bridge or subway are provided for new roads whenever the cost can be covered out of the compensation payable to the landowner and can also be provided if national agricultural interests justify it. Certainly in many reports by independent inspectors following public inquiries ideas are put forward by the inspectors and we always carefully and sympathetically consider these to see whether it is possible to find one way or another to provide the sort of access that the hon. Member suggests.
An alternative solution is the provision of milking parlours as accommodation works on each side of the road. These measures may be provided if an existing road is improved and the improvement is substantial.

Mr. Robert C. Brown (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West): I appreciate that cattle crossings are normally incorporated in major new road schemes, but the smaller byroad or unclassified road is often much more important. It is essential that the type of sign my hon. Friend has mentioned should be used where cattle cross for milking, just as a sign is used to indicate a school crossing patrol. Such signs should be at either end of the stretch of road which the cattle cross. Quite apart from the potential danger to the cattle, there is the possibility of at least serious damage to a car.

Mr. Speed: I shall come to the subject of signs. What the hon. Member has said is interesting and pertinent. At the moment I am saying that prevention is better than cure. But, particularly with new roads, crossing over or under the road, with the duplication or resiting of milking parlours, which may be covered by compensation or covered directly by Government grant if the national agricultural interest so requires, will be the solution because, whatever signs there may be, there is always an agricultural risk that is greater than when cattle and cars are separated.
The general problems associated with cattle crossing main roads were thoroughly examined in the mid-1960s when it was noticed—this is important—that far fewer farm animals needed to cross roads than had previously been the case. First, farmers were increasingly aware of the need for caution as traffic built up, and they implemented measures to solve the problems. These measures included—I have seen examples land exchanges and alterations in tenancy agreements, the resiting of buildings, and policy changes such as switching from dairy farming to beef production. All those measures helped. My own experience and the advice that I get from advisers in my Department is that, although the problems are still severe in some parts of the country, generally they are less than they used to be.
Given that we are aware of the need to provide crossing facilities where appropriate, there are two other arrangements to consider. The first is the question of road signs, which both hon. Members have raised. I certainly agree that there is scope for improving the use of warning signs on roads, and also that this matter has not, perhaps, been proceeded with as expeditiously as it might have been, but there have, of course, been a number of other things on which we have had to concentrate.
My right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries has, however, recently had discussions with the National Farmers Union about this. The union has in principle welcomed various proposals that my right hon. Friend has put to it. Details are being worked out in the Department and they will shortly be sent both to the NFU and to other interested organisations, including the local authority associations, which are important in all this.
I hope that the hon. Member will forgive me if I do not go into details of those proposals tonight, because it would be wrong to do so before the associations and other interests have been consulted. What we have in mind will, I think, go quite a long way to resolving the remaining problems, and my right hon. Friend is well aware of the need to press on with this. The consultations will be pressed forward as quickly as possible so that we can reach a conclusion and finality. In due course they will be reported to the House and will, I hope, be implemented.
A major point which we have very much in mind—this is a problem which I ask the House to consider—is that, as with pedestrian crossings, we cannot simply erect a warning sign wherever one is requested. This is one of the problems regarding the flashing signs to which the hon. Member referred. With all these signs—pelicans, ordinary pedestrian crossings or whatever they might be—one must have a form of criteria, otherwise the currency can be devalued by having a proliferation of signs which at the end of the day will be ignored. The hon. Member will know from experience that we face the same problem with speed limits. That is why the Department has

for many years exercised site control over the installation of cattle signs, to prevent a proliferation of this useful type of warning sign.
One problem relating to the cattle sign when applied to occasional journeys by farm animals as opposed to the open heath is that the message is often applicable only at limited times of the day, and permanent display can devalue the sign in the eyes of motorists. That is another problem that we must deal with.
Until we have decided how best to resolve the problem and until the criteria on which we are currently working have been determined, approval for the use of cattle warning signs can still be sought from my Department's regional roads and transportation controller.
As regards the specific and relevant question which has been put about Mr. Dickson, the hon. Member outlined accurately the various circumstances of the improvement to the road. It is an improvement rather than completely brand new road construction. When the hon. Member for Cleveland wrote to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development last year, my right hon. Friend told him in his reply that responsibility for the road rested with the North Riding County Council, the highway authority.
With the dualling of the road between Cross Keys and Upsall traffic circus, visibility will be improved once the scheme is finally completed. Warning signs drawing attention to the cattle crossing have been in position for some time. We are certainly aware, however, that traffic speed on the road may increase as a result of the improvement and the increased visibility. Certainly it may be necessary for the signs to be repositioned. We are always willing to give our expertise and guidance to the appropriate highway authority, in this case the North Riding County Council.
My advice is that Mr. Dickson bought the farm in the full knowledge that the road scheme was envisaged at the time, and the county council had already acquired the land necessary for the provision of dual carriageways. I understand also that the county council has several times considered, the most recent occasion being last month, the request by Mr. Dickson for the provision of a cattle


"creep" but decided that it was not justified.
I understand that since acquiring the farm Mr. Dickson has changed his method of farming and now has a dairy herd and intends to build it up to 100 cows. The animals cross the road four times a day—obviously a traffic hazard.
As a statement of fact, the Department is always prepared to consider a grant of 75 per cent. of the cost of a cattle "creep" on principal roads—and this is one—where the local authority asks for it and where it makes a case for it. I say "consider". We do not always make the grant. In this case no application was made and therefore we had no locus in the matter.
Perhaps the final element in this difficult question is that concerning those in charge of animals. By now farmers are all too well aware of the need to observe some helpful rules. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food issued its Code for Farmers in May 1968. I got the impression from what the hon. Gentleman said that he did not like this. It is by no means the total answer, but it is helpful. Some of the guidelines were mentioned by him.
It is obviously important that those in charge of animals on the road, particularly at milking times, in half-light, should be clearly visible in the same way as motorway maintenance men and men working on railway track. They should wear distinctive clothing of a highly visible colour.
I hope I will not be misunderstood if I also say that we should bear in mind that children are not always the best cattle drovers, particularly on today's roads, when droving is a skilled exercise. Only those of a responsible age and with the necessary experience should be allowed on to the highway in charge of farm animals. If it is possible, and with milking times I appreciate that usually it is not, the droving should be timed to avoid peak traffic flows.
We all know that the precautions we have taken would be in vain without the understanding and co-operation of those who drive vehicles on the road. This debate is useful in reminding all road users, motor cyclists, car and lorry drivers, that there is a special problem here. It is a diminishing one but it still exists par-

ticularly in rural areas. We should keep a special look-out for cattle crossings.
I have taken into account what the hon. Gentleman has said, particularly about signing. I hope that he and the House will have noted that we are making progress here, and that we will be able to draw our discussions with the authorities to a speedy conclusion. I cannot at this stage give an undertaking that we will have flashing lights, but various ideas are being explored in depth and have been welcomed by the National Farmers' Union. I hope that, having received those assurances and having been able to raise the problems of the principal roads in his constituency, the hon. Gentleman will feel that this debate has been worth while.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: I agree that when speed limit signs proliferate they tend to be ignored, but the hon. Gentleman cannot equate such signs which are effective 24 hours a day with flashing signs such as those used to indicate children crossing a road. Such signs are in use only for limited periods during the day, and the same would be true of flashing signs to indicate cattle crossing.

Mr. Speed: I understand that, but there is this difference. "Children crossing" signs, speed limit signs and most of the other signs about which we have been talking are generally in urban situations. I assume that nine times out of 10 such signs are in speed-restricted areas. We start at an advantage if the driver is obeying the speed limit. The hon. Gentleman will know from experience that by and large people respect realistic speed limits. That is different from the farm situation, which almost by definition is rarely in a speed-restricted area and has a whole range of roads, including country lanes with very poor visibility. Presumably the farmer would be relied on to actuate the sign. There are problems of maintenance and so on.
I am not completely dismissing the argument The hon. Member for Cleveland, who originally raised the matter with my right hon. Friend, is clearly concerned about it and feels that it is one way of solving the problem. But there is a difference where there is a completely unrestricted area and a whole range of roads, from the smallest


country lane up to dual-carriageway trunk or principal roads.
That is why both the expert advice I have received and my own inclination is to have reservations about the flashing

sign, although I accept that we must make improvements in the present situation.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at a quarter to Twelve o'clock.